A Nightmare on Elm Street (remake)

[Remo D]

Look--you knew it was inevitable. And it was inevitable that it would have a huge opening weekend at the very least. We've had our new Michael, our new Jason, our new Leatherface--there was no way this was NOT going to happen--so let's just take a look and see how it fares on its own.

As for Robert Englund being the "only" Freddy Krueger? If that's how you feel, fine. Perhaps you also feel Sean Connery is the "only" James Bond, and he may well be the original and the best, but the ensuing decades have established that he's not the only ACCEPTABLE James Bond at the very least. And I could say the same thing about Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, Sherlock Holmes or any other classic character you care to name.

The fact is that Jackie Earle Haley does an admirable and honorable job with the role of Freddy Krueger. He clearly took his role seriously and had no intention of providing a mere Robert Englund impersonation. Hey--this is RORSCHACH we're talking about--and I seriously doubt they could have landed a better actor for this part. The ELM STREET redux hovers above the slag pile by virtue of Haley alone.

Yep, you heard me... alone. The movie itself... just isn't very good. Sure, isolated moments here and there work, and the cast certainly tries its best, but the attempt to go back to the roots of the series and "re-imagine" it with a more perverse tone remains just that--an attempt. What we actually get is a severely pedestrian script that cuts corners and spoon-feeds the viewer (honestly, is there ANY good reason at all for Freddy to TELL Nancy that her memories fuel him? He just throws that out there at one point!), plays hell with logic (and I don't mean of the supernatural variety--are you really asking me to believe that EVERY child involved completely forgot about the original incident, not that I'd actually spoil it here?) and is so focused on the character's underlying corruption and sickness that it forgets to supply such details as what inspired him to, say, create a set of finger knives to begin with? Or just HOW he became a dream demon at all? (Craven's original didn't spell everything out, but at least it alluded to an ancient discipline that enabled certain parties to enter the dreams of others--we get NOTHING on which to hang our hats here)?

The new NIGHTMARE does manage to trump the original on one count--if you think that even the Craven classic had a nonsensical and incomprehensible fadeout, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

And another thing...

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

SPOILER

...could somebody PLEASE declare a moratorium on characters named "Quentin" and adrenaline hypodermics to the heart? At least in the SAME movie? Really. You're embarrassing yourselves, people.

Cheers and kudos to Jackie Earle Haley for taking on a thankless task and giving it his all. A mere "meh" to everything else.

[Kimberly]

no desire to see this

[Darth Tanner]

no desire to see this

You wouldn't be missing much Kim. I went into this expecting to absolutely hate it and was ready to tear into Jackie Earle Haley. In all honesty it wasn't as bad as I anticipated, but it still pales in comparison to the original. After going to see this remake I went back and rewatched the original. Even after over 25 years and countless sequels, the original movie still holds up pretty well. It has a strong female lead in the form of Heather Langenkamp and a nice meaty role for John Saxon. Plus the supporting players (Amanda Wyss and a then-unknown Johnny Depp) actually added some life to their characters. Robert Englund was also great and made for a very scary Freddy Krueger (although his scariness would diminish in the following sequels). Overall it is one of Wes Craven's better movies and is still pretty effective.

Unfortunately I don't have as many positives to say about this "reimagining". Jackie Earle Haley did a pretty good job under the circumstances, but I still prefer Robert Englund anyday. The girl who played Nancy was very boring and had almost no personality. It was nice though to see Clancy Brown even if his role came up being too small. But I did enjoy watching Katie Cassidy (from the new "Melrose Place" series) since she was at least easy on the eyes:) The biggest problem was that this movie was never really scary (despite a few good jump scares) and it was just a bland rehash of the original movie. I also didn't like the whole backstory that was added to this version. The fact that you didn't know much about Freddy in the original made it much more effective IMO.

Yes this did have a pretty strong opening, but IRON MAN 2 will no doubt kick it into oblivion after this weekend and hopefully put an end to these pointless "reimaginings".

[LIVE FO RETSINIM]

I am too scared to go see it. The first one scared me way too much, the remake has got to be even scarier.

does anyone else think it's strange that jonny depp was in both nightmare on elm street AND edward scizzor hands? A little too weird if you ask me. Something strange about this Depp guy. I wish I had more time to look into this but I am so busy with the whole black guy in Iron man 2 not looking the same. What's up with that? I need answers.