Most Active
Latest Headlines
- First Look at Milla Jovovich in Faces in the Crowd
- Partake in the Theatrical Zombie Feast
- Blockbuster Member? See Argento's Latest Now...
- Vote Now: The 2010 Reaper Awards
- Fantastic Fest 2010 Films: Cormans Receive Lifetime Achievment Award
- A Clip from Joe Dante's The Hole
- Green Band Trailer for Monsters
- What's the Status of Zombieland 2?
- Wow, Aliens Blu-Ray Transfer Screen Grabs!
Reviews
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Reviewed by: Ryan Rotten, Managing Editor
Rating: 5 out of 10
Movie Details: View here
Cast:Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger
Rooney Mara as Nancy Holbrook
Kyle Gallner as Quentin Smith
Katie Cassidy as Kris Fowles
Thomas Dekker as Jesse Braun
Kellan Lutz as Dean Russell
Clancy Brown as Alan Smith
Connie Britton as Dr. Gwen Holbrook
Directed by Samuel Bayer
Review:
This isn't my Freddy Krueger.
This is a Krueger for a generation of horror fans reveling in the bleak excess and extremes they've witnessed in films like Hostel and Saw. This is a Krueger who doesn't want to have any fun.
Not that I was expecting a wise-cracking dream stalker, but going into a reboot of Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street one would expect it might channel the essence of Freddy Krueger's original persona. At least that Krueger (played with gusto by Robert Englund), even in the first film, knew how to be entertaining. Sitting through the opening credits, however, and seeing a "story by" credit being granted to Wesley Strick (you'd expect it to go to Craven, or no "story" credit to be given at all) you know something is amiss and big changes are a-comin'. Those changes are not for the better.
Taking the same drop-dead dreary atmosphere that threatened to suffocate its audience in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Platinum Dunes team and director Samuel Bayer have applied it to the town of Springwood. Where it worked just fine for Leatherface and his bloodthirsty family, the tone here saps the energy right out of quaint neighborhood of Elm Street which - unlike the original film - isn't much of a character in and of itself. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to gauge the geography of Elm Street at all and where the troubled teens lived in respect to one another. But I digress. A Nightmare on Elm Street is a lifeless film that shares none of the imagination with its forefather and the sequels that followed. It's not a picture that knows subtlety well and forces its hand all too often to enhance themes that are, in essence, creepy but the execution isn't enough to get under your skin.
In this update, the kids who once lived on Elm Street are broken up. They're off living their lives as teens in various parts of the country many years after their time together at pre-school, but a few remain in Springwood and they're all suffering painful and terrifying dreams that permeate their sleep. Nancy (Rooney Mara) and Kris (Katie Cassidy, looking way too old for high school) realize something is wrong after their pal Dean seemingly cuts his throat open during the film's graphic and effective opening sequence at the Springwood diner. There's far too much story focus on Kris - essentially the "Tina" character - early on and that steals from any investment we might put into Nancy, who the narrative revisits as if "oh yeah, we need to get back to her." Once Nancy re-enters the picture, it's business as usual. Like the original film, the kids realize they're all dreaming about the same burned man with the clawed hand, the fedora and the red and green sweater.
Writers Strick and Eric Heisserer deviate from the source material somewhat when it comes to unraveling the Freddy Krueger mystery and his motivations. There's the requisite - and I can't believe they put this in - "research" scene on dreams that Nancy and her pal Quentin (a mopey Kyle Gallner who's just shy of being a sibling to his goth character in Jennifer's Body) participate in. The film also calls into play a Pied Piper element. Freddy is trying to lead the Elm Street kids somewhere and to a harsh revelation. One can easily get what his scheme is early on, but here's the problem: A Nightmare on Elm Street is in love with its freshened-up conceit (i.e. his relationship with the Elm Street kids) so much that the movie forgets to be inventive.
Oh sure, the story introduces the absurd idea of micro naps, which allows Freddy to appear and strike whenever the kids doze off for even a second, but it cheapens the film because the micro naps serve no other purpose than to provide weak “boo" gags. These detract from any potential elaborate dream sequences which are sorely lacking in innovation. Bayer and company retain a level of familiarity, importing many iconic dreams from the original film - the bathtub, the body bag in the school hallway, the bedroom slice ‘n dice - and go figure, these got the most audience reaction, but there's nothing new brought to the table. With such a broad palette to work with, there are a lot of missed opportunities. Freddy doesn't toy all that much with his prey. He doesn't pull any mind games (cutting his fingers off, slicing his torso) to intimidate the kids. He simply goes for the throat. That's a bit of a drag and it certainly doesn't elevate him beyond anything more than single-minded supernatural maniac out for revenge. How Freddy goes about his business - what fuels him, so to speak - has also been altered to suit the aggressive nature of his enhanced perversity thus spelling things out for a modern audience.
Jackie Earle Haley is fine, but not entirely memorable, as Krueger. A modest effort with impressive make-up. His scale of emotion is limited to mumbling, sneering or simply shouting, however. He's a victim of the material which doesn't allow him too much freedom to show many shades. There are not too many colors to the kids either as they sulk their way through under-lit scenes that often wash their faces out in shadows.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a languid, unsuccessful attempt to tap into the extreme darkness of Krueger's nature and it simply leaves you cold. Rewriting an icon is no easy task and perhaps doing a distant sequel that recognizes the established franchise would have fared better. Again, no easy task there either - especially after Freddy vs. Jason (which this reboot quotes almost with the line, "Welcome to my world, bitch!") - but maybe a sequel of sorts would have sat more comfortably with this longtime Krueger fan who was hopeful to find a glimmer of anything that made me dig the character in the first place. Bayer stated to us at one time that he hoped to do for Krueger what The Dark Knight did for Batman. Now having seen Bayer's Nightmare I have to ask, "Why so serious?"
| | | 151 comments | | | Add a comment |
Comments
Posted by: terry on April 29, 2010 at 14:21:32
yeah well it looks awesome regardless of what the review says.... I like dark and twisted horror movies!!! Cant wait to watch!
Posted by: Freddy on April 29, 2010 at 14:39:57
I stopped reading after your first quote.
Stop being a fan boy you spaz.
Posted by: Mark on April 29, 2010 at 14:43:02
Why do people who review movies have to write what seems like 40 pages of a review. Harry and Massawyrm from Aint it cool news are really annoying with their dragging reviews. I don’t care about every detail about the reviewers experience they had at the screening . KEEP it simple and learn not to give so much detail about the movie to point , why go see it.
Posted by: Winchester on April 29, 2010 at 14:45:07
Clearly this review is not for Freddy or Mark who are the ADD types this movie caters to.
Posted by: Ryan Rotten on April 29, 2010 at 14:47:58
Mark, did you read anything? I hardly put "my popcorn was great" and so on... It's all about r-e-a-d-i-n-g. Examples are given to back up the opinions. If you want a simple: "Oh yeah, this movie sucked" then I'm sure there are plenty of sites out there that offer a juvenile one-liner.
Posted by: Mark on April 29, 2010 at 14:54:42
Winchester A review of a movie can be sum up In a paragraph or two. At comingsoon.net the reviews there I skip all bull and go to the part of the review called the bottom line, and that part sums the movie up in one to two paragraphs.
Posted by: philbs on April 29, 2010 at 14:57:12
That review was pretty on point with everything I anticipated after following this remake for the last year. It's good to get such an honest review.
Posted by: jeremy on April 29, 2010 at 14:58:01
@ Mark: 7 brief paragraphs is hardly a novel. If you simply want cheesy sound bites, stick to the movies official site or rotton tomato's summary pages after it opens wide.
Why bother reading a review if not for that reviewer's experience of the movie, and his reasoning for giving such a review. In this case, you are fairly advised that the reviewer is a diehard fan of the originals, so you can take his feelings on the new incarnation with a grain of salt if you shoose to do so.
Christ, the next comment was right, if these ADD addled brains are the audience these movies have to cater to, no wonder they are so common.
Posted by: philbs on April 29, 2010 at 15:00:12
Agreed, it's really sad when people whine about the length of review.
Posted by: Mark on April 29, 2010 at 15:07:32
It seems I hit a nerve. It just my opinion the review of a movie should not be so detailed that it gives a lot of the movie away. So all u kiss ass can bite me
Posted by: WIL Keiper on April 29, 2010 at 15:13:40
I agree with Mark why do all horror websites have to write such long boring reviews!
Posted by: LuisTX85 on April 29, 2010 at 15:27:56
Horror movies always seem to get the most hate by critics!,Just cause those critics feel it's bad..It don't make it FACT!.
After YOU see it,IF you think it's bad..Just go back to the dvds of the originals!.
Posted by: Bilbo on April 29, 2010 at 15:39:16
My only problem with this review, is well, that it reads like whiney fanboy drivel. Robert Englund is never coming back to play Freddy. Live with it. After you finally get over that, give the film another watch, with a fair review. This guy went into the theatre, hating the movie.
Posted by: philbs on April 29, 2010 at 15:44:08
"This guy went into the theatre, hating the movie."
This is a hilarious statement...which seems to be really overused online these days. His article doesn't even remotely imply that he hated it because Englund wasn't in it. Seriously, some people have the most desperate reasoning to counter reviews of disappointment. It's like people are too delusional to accept that maybe most remakes are in fact marginal disappointments these days.
Posted by: LuisTX85 on April 29, 2010 at 15:50:56
"This guy went into the theatre, hating the movie."
Not sure about this guy,But I know of fans who are going and already hating on it before any review came out.,Even IF/When reading the reviews..They will focus on that instead of there own opinions!.
Posted by: kwame on April 29, 2010 at 16:00:52
dats why i dont read da **** lol i just look to see how the rating out of ten is then i watch the movie anyway
Posted by: Bilbo on April 29, 2010 at 16:03:57
to Philbs
When you begin a review, with a pointless statement like "This isn't my Freddy Krueger", and then proceed to pigeonhole today's audience, as gore hounds, with no sense of humour. Yeah, sorry, I tend to believe he has been biased against the entire project, since word one of this remake hit the net. Again, his review is from a fanboy's brain, who can't possibly accept that one of his icons is being reinvented for a new audience. Going so far to complain about Wes Craven not getting a writing credit, as if it matters AT ALL to the quality of the film.
It's really not too hard to read between the lines of that review. It's a fanboy's perspective.
Posted by: Lobo on April 29, 2010 at 16:35:15
Maybe, maybe not Bilbo, Joblo didn't like this film either, can't say it's an undeniable proof but it can't be ignored !
Posted by: Zombie WElch on April 29, 2010 at 16:41:02
Uh oh this movie doesn't look promising anymore LOL... this is the 2nd review I read which got a bad review on joblo the dude gave it a 3/10...thats ****in bad.
Posted by: Ryan Rotten, Managing Editor on April 29, 2010 at 16:52:36
Alright, let me step in: I think I gave it a pretty fair assessment once you read the work carefully and not READ IT AS A FANBOY pissed off about the first sentence.
For those with the ADD, here's some bullet points as to why it doesn't work. As a film that stands on its own, which I'm pretty sure I addressed above - again, if you even read the whole review:
- No creativity
- Lifeless, it lacks energy and heart
- Stylistically, it doesn't work (I'd like to see our actors faces to read the emotion)
- Quite frankly, Freddy doesn't work with or without Englund. Although again, I specify that Jackie isn't given much to play with emotionally
Again, these are all covered.
And to the dude that thought I was bias the minute we've been reporting on this film? You clearly haven't been reading this site from day one. We're about as open-minded as possible as evidence in this debate: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=12727
Y'know...that's the article where I say I'm curious and not ready to pre-judge the whole film.
Posted by: mike237 on April 29, 2010 at 17:38:58
To Ryan Rotten:
I haven't been a big fan of remakes, but I love the Hostel and Saw movies. I also hated how Freddy became Jay Leno in the later sequels. I'm pretty excited to see this, and I was actually hoping for a "darker" Freddy Krueger.
That being said, I though your review was very well put, not at all like the crap I read on sites like Ain't It (Whatever). You know you're going to get people *****ing at you no matter what, but I think your coverage of this flick proved you were weren't really biased. And it's not like you gave it a 1...
Grow up people. It's possible to not like the movie just because, well, you don't like it.
Still hoping I like it though...but we'll see. Keep up the great work guys, you're site kicks ass (oops...now I'm kissing ass again...oh well).
One last thing: Just stop covering Twilight. Please. For the love of God... That's the only thing that ticks me off...
Posted by: dashape on April 29, 2010 at 17:54:51
Ouch, easy on poor Rotten guys. He's entitled to his opinion as much as the next guy. If he didn't think it was that great so what?
Posted by: brooklynpsycho on April 29, 2010 at 17:56:15
@ Bilbo, I agree with you 100%. I too felt the same way as i was reading this review. This is definitely my Freddy if he's darker and meaner and doesn't want to have any fun. And if it has the same drop-dead dreary atmosphere as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", even better for me because that movie was beyond brutal and amazing. It's funny how he's pointing out all the stuff he didn't like, and that's all the stuff I love lol. Especially with the micro naps, which I think is totally awesome. So after reading this review, I'm sure I will love this movie 100%.
Posted by: Taylor on April 29, 2010 at 18:57:09
Here's what I gather from this review;
-Freddy is one-dimensional
-It was directed poorly (who would have thunk, coming from a music video director?)
Rotten, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but those are the two main points that I got.
Oh well, I already bought my tickets to see it tomorrow. I'm trying to go into it pretending I never saw the originals, I've learned that's the only way to watch remakes.
Posted by: Chris on April 29, 2010 at 18:58:00
I remember when Englunds voice in a preview would scare the crap out of me.
I herd Haily's " Krueger voice" and I immediately thought - Why did they make Freddy Scottish? I mean I understand that Shrek was a huge hit but why does it have to rub off on Freddy???
The Freddy from my childhood still scares the crap out of me. This new one made me laugh.
Just from the voice alone - I'll pass!!!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Add a comment