A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) review

[The Dream Master]

Here it is--the big one, a look at the biggest and most controversial remake since Rob Zombie's Halloween: my take on A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (http://www.oh-the-horror.com/page.php?id=610).

[CrystalLake]

I'm planning on seeing this with my girlfriend. I'm having mixed expectations since reviews have been mediocre on average, but I'm giving this a shot. I'm sure if I liked PD's Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th, I'll like this one.

[flafilmmaker]

Well, here's my take (though I guess most won't like it - LOL):


"A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET" (2010) - REVIEW - 0 stars out of 4

At 29 years old; I not only grew up watching the "Elm Street" series; but fell into it's marketing scheme.

Freddy Halloween glove? Check. "Freddy's Nightmares" VHS tapes? Check. Brim hat for Halloween? Check.

I was first introduced into the series through part 4; as it was the first film I was old enough to check out. Having grown up on Elvira and Joe Bob Briggs on cable television, my parents knew I was ready to get into the Freddy universe. After all - I'd handled "Beetlejuice" just fine and that had some pretty terrifying imagery for a youngster.

After enjoying the hell out of the 4th film and purchasing it at the local Suncoast; I then made my way into picking up parts 1-3 with allowance money. Each month - I couldn't wait to see what hi-jinks Mr. Krueger was up to; and how he dispatched each victim. No matter how poor the films were - the dream sequences were always so interesting to me. Looking back on those movies; I can now see why. Despite hit and miss resumes from many of the directors; lots were men of vision. And, at least; as the quality varied from film-to-film; the directors left behind lasting imprints on each particular entry they crafted.

Fast forward to today.

I just don't know where to start.

***********SPOILER WARNING**************

Originally, I was going to pass on the new "Nightmare" (bad pun - sorry); but so many told me to give it a shot, I figured it was worth my time.

It was just indescribably bad.

Okay. I will admit. The opening shot gave me high hopes. A slow track outside the 'Springwood Diner'. Once inside we're confronted with some nifty neon lighting and hints of retro set design. Unfortunately; everything went out the window after a loud stinger accompanies Freddy's glove which is suddenly (and needlessly) thrown into the mix. Incorporating this shot ruins any chance of jumping when the character is suddenly dispatched. And isn't there something more terrifying a director can do than just jump cut to a wide angle with a razor glove in frame; then cut back again to see it's disappeared? Thank God for loud sound effects. That's all this movie has going for it.

Apparently; it is in this sequence we are supposed to be introduced to our leads. Nancy is now a waitress (in a diner apparently paying homage to "ANOES 4)". Problem is with the "re-imagining" of her character - the modern Nancy already acts as if she's suffering from sleep depravation. Right from the opening she delivers her lines with all the gusto of Maggie Gyllenhaal doing a Zooey Deschanel impersonation. What's up with today's young actresses? Can we PLEASE get some emotion; some charisma; some looks? None of these girls would never be able to do Broadway…wait did I say Broadway? Make that Sheboygan Community Theater.

After the above mentioned murder scene; we are then thrust into bad movie heaven. It appears the rest of the cast for this winner consists of:

1) A knock-off of the kid from American Beauty (I was just waiting for a plastic bag to fly around during the cemetery sequences)
2) Some dudes in their twenties posing as high-schoolers and full of Emo angst (whatever the hell that means)
3) An unbelievably Barbie doll-looking chick with a good looking' momma who never was around (whoops - sorry - inserted some Tom Petty lyrics there)
4) A (soon to be) romantic lead with all the charisma of Steven Wright reading "War and Peace"

Anyhoo…After a while, the story attempts to follows the original - switching the Heather character with the above mentioned sad, sad Barbie doll knock-off of Tina. It's at this point the filmmakers apparently give us all they've got.

I believe the lobby cards for this one must read:

HANG with a cast of characters who never share a single happy moment (the feeling's contagious). WATCH as the filmmakers "re-invent" the 'coming through the window' sequence of the original film (sans "Don't Fear the Reaper")…but when the character exits the house, a burglar alarm is tripped(????). TRY TO FIGURE OUT why a town so small (it has no chain stores or restaurants) has swarms of state police pursuing someone in less than 15 minutes (movie time). WITNESS a teen accused of murder from circumstantial evidence thrown into a prison(?!) cell with an adult inmate. WATCH as characters mindlessly inject multiple CC's of adrenaline into their legs with no ill-side effects whatsoever(?).

If you remove the completely illogical script from the equation - this film is still a huge misfire. All the characters from the original don't make it back. No more personal connections to the Freddy back-story fuel this. Goodbye Lt. Thompson (John Saxon is sorely missed here). Heck - even Nancy's mother doesn't get the classic ("Freddy's Dead and Mommy Killed Him" speech). Nope. Folks, this is strictly by the numbers. We follow a bunch of unlikeable characters as they embark on a lame adventure ala "The Ring" remake. That's right. Nancy spends the majority of the 2nd half of this film trying to prove Freddy's innocence(!). Barely any of the sequences revolve around the Thompson home (was that even Nancy's last name in this one?). Instead; they opt for a "go to the scene of the original crime" type plot. Eeeeghad.

Gone are the inventive dream sequences. No cool set-design; or usage of (apparently) infinite spaces here. Heck - not even a fisheye during an extreme CU when a character's under. Nope. What do we get? Some de-saturated imagery and occasional CGI on characters traipsing around boring hallways. And remember that cool sequence in the original? Where the stairs melted into a marshmellow-ey type substance and no matter how fast Nancy ran; she just couldn't escape Freddy? That's been replaced by a computer generated pool of blood that dissolves into the character falling through the ceiling. Did not one person involved with this realize the inability to escape; to not run fast enough; is a common dream shared by many and something the audience can actually relate to?

There are winks and nods to entries in the previous series. Lines are borrowed (heavily) from the original, part 4 (of all things) and Freddy VS Jason. But, in the end - it all seemed sad. We really could have used SOME inventive deaths. The entire movie consists of a loud sound effect followed by a slashing from the razor glove.

Big the big question here is….Why is the boiler room included? Freddy's new back-story is as the school's "gardener". Not janitor. And all the flashback sequences never once show him working around furnaces. Heck. They show him as an art lover who's molesting the Elm-Street children sexually (and physically) as they paint away in his "hidden chamber". I didn't get it. Maybe someone out there can explain? Did they just use the visuals and back-drop as part of a "well - it's in all the others - we'll just throw this in here and no one will ask"? Heck; the pre-school he was working at looked like it consisted of a site trailer and small building. It wouldn't even have a furnace and water heater of large proportion.

I always ask myself during these "re-imaginings"…Would this film have led to a cult following if the original entry didn't exist? Answer. NO. In fact, if you haven't seen any previous entries, it doesn't even make sense.

So - with my take on the script out of the way…I'll answer the questions most people out there probably have.

Q: How are the dream sequences?
A: Lame. They just flash the lights on and off once someone's under and then, apparently, they are asleep. Don't expect any creative set design; or scenes slowly becoming jumbled to figure out someone's under. Just some CGI effects making the backgrounds wiggle every now and then.

Q: Is Freddy scary again? Are there bad one liners like the sequels?
A: No to the scary part. Yes to the one-liners. And the worst part is - they're almost all from previous entries and no longer funny at all now that they've focused on what child molestation does to one's mentality. In fact; the jokes are just disturbing.

Q: Are the kill scenes at least cool?
A: No. They're just a quick pop with a CGI gore effect. Nothing creative here. And - there's no continuity to what's going on in the dream. In fact; during the death inside the prison - while asleep - the character is seen receiving Freddy's arm through his back and stomach - but in the real world - only his stomach contains a wound(?). Plus; everything is telegraphed from a mile away. The "double wake-up". The "he's in the closet". My girlfriend and I called it all.

Q: How is the new Freddy?
A: Jackie Earle Haley may have been okay - but it's hard to tell. Most of his lines are delivered through heavy prosthetic make-up and his voice is mumbled (as expected). The filmmakers needed to perform ADR. Gone are the vocal effects to make Englund's Krueger effective. They literally use barely adjusted on-set audio. The same fate befell the monkey actors in the remake of "Planet of the Apes"

Q: How does this compare to the so-so "Elm Street" sequels?
A: Poorly. Considering those films were shot outside the studio system and were independently produced; they displayed surprising up and coming talent (Johnny Depp, Patricia Arquette, etc.) and top-notch effects work for the time. This one is strictly loaded with poor a CGI-aided Freddy and dreary visuals that include no thought whatsoever (despite the much larger budget and studio support).

Well; that's it I guess. Not much more I can say.

But - hey - the new "ANOES" disappointed me enough to actually write this review - so; I guess, in the end, I got my money's worth.

File this one away under a more appropriate title. "A Nightmare on Emo Street"

Either way, can somebody please answer. How the FU#! did the boiler room fit into this story?

[The Tall Man]

I'm sorry, DM, but Fla's review is what you should have written for OTH. Bravo, Fla. http://www.smileyhut.com/happy/clap2.gif

Also, Nancy's last name isn't Thompson in this one. It was Holbrook, I believe. Also, I was wondering the EXACT same thing thing about the boiler room stuff.

T.M., Esq.

[flafilmmaker]

Hey, I just can't believe so many people are looking past the fact the main story doesn't work at all. I mean - if you hadn't seen the other films - and just came into this one as a starter (it is supposed to be a "re-imagining") - how could you not come out asking "what does a boiler room have to do with the story"?

I mean - in the original film - they montage Freddy creating the glove - in that location - setting it up to be his own personal lair (just like I guess his hidden room in this one); so it was fitting that he would haunt people from where he was connected. Here - it should have been from that little room, I guess - but still - visually that would have been so boring; it's like they just said "Screw it. No one will ask questions. They're used to seeing the boiler room. Use it".

Sorry I missed the Holbrook thing. Probably because none of the characters connected with me in any way. I mean; they weren't even fun in the horror movie sense.

I know Platinum Dunes isn't noted for quality films - but for Christ sake - this one is literally one to go down in history. LOL.

[The Dream Master]

Well, I don't think you can say I "looked past the story"-- I pointed out that it lacks depth, moves too quickly, and the conclusion is forced. However, I am not going to give the movie our lowest rating because the boiler room isn't explained, as it really has very little bearing on the story or its effectiveness. I briefly considered mentioning it in my review, but I wasn't completely sure it wasn't somehow supposed to be connected to where Freddy was burned alive, as it was quite an industrial backdrop. In the end, I think the fact that all of the film's more effective elements are simply copied from the original is a better example of why it doesn't work.

I stand by what I wrote. A film has got to be absolutely inept in most, if not all elements, to get the lowest rating we have. The Nightmare remake isn't. It has an abundance of flaws, and it all adds up to a tepid, mediocre film. Hence, a lukewarm review.

[The Tall Man]

A film has got to be absolutely inept in most, if not all elements. The Nightmare remake isn't.
I can't cosign that. Not-Nightmare is as inept as they come. At the very least, "Doom Asylum" isn't raping a classic.

Oh yes. I went there.

T.M., Esq.

[The Dream Master]

Not living up to the lofty standards of something like the original Nightmare on Elm Street is not grounds for being inept. I mean, by that standard, every single sequel that couldn't do the same must be inept. A movie is inept based on its own merits (or lack thereof); yes, when it comes to franchises or remakes, comparisons are apt and some degree of faithfulness is expected, but I think something has to completely and utterly fuck up to at least not warrant a look. I mean, Rob Zombie's Halloween is about as poor as it gets, and it's MUCH worse than the Nightmare remake, both in faithfulness and technical aspects. And if that couldn't get our lowest rating, then this one certainly won't.

[The Tall Man]

Not living up to the lofty standards of something like the original Nightmare on Elm Street is not grounds for being inept.
I am not talking about that in the least.

The script is godawful. There are NO rules in this script. Shit just happens for NO reason... and not in the kitchy-cool FN kinda no reason. That "micro naps" bullshit was just so they could have Not-Freddy pop up whenever the hell they felt like it. And both the movie's endings... where the fuck is the sense in it? The script seems as if it was written by cavemen. The script that makes no fucking sense or bothers to have us care for its characters is nothing but inept.

I don't know which is worse, Not-Nightmare or Zombieween... but they are at least equally poor. But I will say this... the things that happen in Zombieween do sort of make sense and are followable.

T.M., Esq.

[The Dream Master]

About the ending...come on, it's like other films in the series! Nightmare 1 and 2 both end in similar fashion. It seems like it's over, but no, Freddy's really not vanquished. The sequence at the end of this new one was really poor from a visual perspective (Freddy popping out of the mirror looked godawful) but really, the worst part is that it was predictable.

I'm not saying the script was flawless...far from it. The micronaps (like many elements) are just tossed in with little relevance, but they' are at least explained. It'd be different if they just started happening with no explanation for what they are--THAT would be inept. Instead, it's merely half-assed. But as a narrative it as at least somewhat coherent, even if the whole thing doesn't work perfectly. If it were completely inept, it'd be impossible to follow, with horrendously bad dialogue through and through. Granted, some of the dialogue IS really poor (that one sequence with Nancy and her mother fighting was really bad, and some of Freddy's lines are just pure clunkers), but there's much worse out there. It's mediocre, just like the film as a whole. Utterly forgettable, and, quite frankly, I'm glad it's come and gone so everyone can move on from it.

[Joshg]

At the very least, "Doom Asylum" isn't raping a classic.

Oh yes. I went there.

LOL! I think I love you. XD

[The Tall Man]

LOL! I think I love you. XD
So what are we so afraid of?

Wait, what?

T.M., Esq.

[idolone]

I skipped this one this weekend, and after reading your review Dream Master (and others) it sounds like I made the right choice. I'll check it out in the dollar theater.

[flafilmmaker]

I guess what sucks about it is...

This is a movie where I didn't want everyone to forget and move on, you know? I was hoping maybe they could re-vamp the series; and then we could get some fun sequels with the dream sequences leading to inventive set pieces.

Damn.

[Rich]

Dream Master, Your review was very well written like they always are. You are a good writer and express yourself well. I disagree with some of your points. I am going to react to some of the things you have said.

However, the character of Freddy Krueger has been largely defined by the man who inhabited the role for over 20 years, Robert Englund. Rather than simply being a glorified stuntman in a mask,

I have been watching all of the Nightmare on Elm Street films for 15 years now. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Robert Englund. I consider myself a die hard fan of the character and of the series. This statement however, just seems to be the same old tired, "It isn't Robert, it isn't Freddy" crap. I am just as much of a fan of Robert and what he has done with the character as everyone else, but recast happens all the time, and is certainly nothing new. Despite some members being tired of my examples, I will use them again, Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee were recast as Dracula and Michael Keaton was recast as Batman. It happens.

Freddy is a more fully realized character, complete with a sick, twisted personality that’s always been both repulsive and endearing

I think Jackie retains that personality in the new film. The scene where he fools the kid into slitting his own throat while laughing his ass off was pretty vintage Freddy to me. Also the scene where you see the claw marks in the dog and he says, "I was just petting him" was pretty sadistic and twisted as well.

As for the character itself, it’s hard to say that the Dunes got him completely right or completely wrong

I watch A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, knowing that was the version of the character they were going for, and think to myself, they got him 100% right.

uneventful and banal dialogue

I just disagree in a big way. "Why are you screaming? I didn't even cut you yet!" "The brain still lives one for seven minutes after the heart stops beating. That means we still have five minutes left to play!" We even have a line returning from A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. "How's this for a wet dream?"

there’s a distinct lack of overall imagination, and anything that’s remotely memorable is simply copied and pasted from previous films

They did change him from just being a murderer/mosteler to just being a child molester, I think. Overall, that is usually what remakes are. They are copy and paste films, hence the term remake. In the Friday the 13th (2009) forum I made a thread a year ago listing over 20 different things the movie took from the entire Friday the 13th series. The only reason why the Texas Chainsaw remake seemed so different then the original is because they changed the premise that they were going to see a grave into they were going to see a concert, and they had more characters to deal with. Chainsaw isn't just one villan like Freddy and Jason, you have an entire family to reinvent. They also replaced the diner scene with the chase in the meat factory. Overall, though remakes usually tend to be a lot of what you already saw. That is kind of the point of a remake.

Haley’s Freddy is one that will certainly take hardcore fans time to warm up to

I've warmed up to him right away. From the get go I fully understood what they were going for. They were not going for the skateboard riding character of A Nightmare on Elm Street 5. They were going for the dark and evil sick and twisted character of the first two Elm Street films, and I think they succeeded in a big way. The thing is there are people whom have had a hatred for this project since it was announced. As a fan I can understand why some fans would feel that way, but my mind was open to this film, because the darker version of the Freddy character was always my preferred version of the character over the more funny one anyway. So the way I see it is, I got MY Freddy back.

[The Dream Master]

Thanks for reading Rich, but I really think you're reading what you want to read in many cases.

I have been watching all of the Nightmare on Elm Street films for 15 years now. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Robert Englund. I consider myself a die hard fan of the character and of the series. This statement however, just seems to be the same old tired, "It isn't Robert, it isn't Freddy" crap.

No, that's NOT what I was saying. You can't argue that the role of Freddy Krueger hasn't been defined by Robert Englund for 20 years because it's a fact--it has because no one else has ever played him at this point. It's much different than just finding another stuntman in a mask to play Jason, Myers, or Leatherface, and anyone that says otherwise is just deluding themselves. My point is that the Dunes had a lot more on their plate by reimagining Freddy--it's just harder to do.

I think Jackie retains that personality in the new film.

Never said he didn't, which is why I said they didn't get Freddy 100% wrong. However, the performance is a bit uneven and the character isn't written completely well, despite having his moments. He's not on par with even the early incarnations of the character in my eyes.

I just disagree in a big way. "Why are you screaming? I didn't even cut you yet!" "The brain still lives one for seven minutes after the heart stops beating. That means we still have five minutes left to play!" We even have a line returning from A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. "How's this for a wet dream?"


Meh, the first line is okay. The second one isn't all that great, particularly with Haley's weird delivery. As for the last line, I acknowledged that when I said that the best lines in the movie were all from previous films. Really, the best bit of new dialogue was the one you mentioned about the dog.


They did change him from just being a murderer/mosteler to just being a child molester, I think.

Also acknowledged that.

...that is usually what remakes are. They are copy and paste films, hence the term remake.

No, a good remake should not be content to just show me the same shit and do it worse. I have no problems with nods back to the original film, but when it's not balanced out with anything new that's noteworthy, there's a problem. All the best parts of this remake felt like a Nightmare on Elm Street cover band trying to do the greatest hits. The Friday the remake borrowed elements in the same way that all the films have borrowed from each other, but they weren't lifting specific scenes wholesale. Been a while since I've seen the Friday remake, but I don't recall them using any specific death sequences from the original films, especially. It might as well have just been Friday the 13th 12, and when I think about the coolest shit in that movie, it was all new stuff (the arrow through the head, the dock death, the girl being held over a campfire, etc.) Same way with TCM, it was basically just another movie in that series.

That's how you do a remake--keep the core themes/elements, but work in a new, original elements to complement it. At the least, if you're going to do a remake that borrows heavily from the original, at least have the decency to do it as well, if not better. I'm not the biggest fan of The Omen remake because it barely did anything new, but it at least was really well done. Nightmare wasn't.

[Rich]

That's how you do a remake--keep the core themes/elements, but work in a new, original elements to complement it

That is kind of what they did with that whole micro-nap thing which I liked. I thought it made a lot of sense and it very pleasable in our age, where most people have some form of sleep deprevation due in large part to culture. We are in a culture where sleep is not looked upon as being very important. We go to our 9-5 jobs. Then we go out to night clubs that don't close until 2 am. Or we are in college and study to all hours of the night. Hence many Americans are sleep deprived, and I think the Freddy appearing in micro-naps was a very pleasable way to tell the story because it speaks to our times.

Of course they need things from the original. They needed the scene in the bathtub. They also should have had him building the glove at the beginning like in the original.

[The Dream Master]

Yes, but the movie touches on absolutely none of that with the micronaps. It's just there as a plot device that lets Freddy pop up at any time, but it ultimately adds nothing to the movie. I think it's a really good concept, but pretty undeveloped. When I look back on this movie, I'm not gonna be saying "hey, the micronap scenes were awesome" because they weren't. I'm gonna be thinking, "the most interesting scenes/death/lines were the ones they lifted from Nightmare 1," and it still wasn't as good. Don't get me wrong, the movie had its fair share of new shit--I just don't think a lot of it was all that interesting.

Of course they need things from the original. They needed the scene in the bathtub.

Did they? I mean, what reason was there to do it besides "because it was in the original?" They did even LESS with the scene than the original did.

[Rich]

Because it was in the original was reason enough. I was pissed when Rob Zombie didn't have Michael Myers behind the hedges in his Halloween. I was also pissed that he didn't have Michael in Laurie's neighbor's yard looking up at her through her window either. If you are going to remake a classic, make it your own, but certain things people are just going to expect.

As far as the micro-naps thing. It was all about the concept not the development. They certainly had it in enough of the movie to be the development, but I think it was meant to be more subtle sub-text like the sociel commentary in a George Romero film.

[The Dream Master]

Since when is Romero subtle? Dude's about as subtle as an anvil. :X I saw no sort of sub-text or anything with the micronaps. Just a plot device that they didn't do much with. There was certainly no commentary about sleep deprivation going on; if there was, what was the comment? In fact, the entire movie was devoid of any sort of subtext, subtle or not, which is exactly the opposite of the original.

Because it was in the original was reason enough.

I don't think so. I think you only need to be faithful to concepts and the essence of the story, but just copying and pasting shit wholesale isn't necessary. Sure, it might be cool to see it because the original did it, and I'm not criticizing the movie for doing it, but there was no real thought put behind it.

[Rich]

Since when is Romero subtle? Dude's about as subtle as an anvil. I saw no sort of sub-text or anything with the micronaps. Just a plot device that they didn't do much with. There was certainly no commentary about sleep deprivation going on; if there was, what was the comment? In fact, the entire movie was devoid of any sort of subtext, subtle or not, which is exactly the opposite of the original.

You and I will agree do disagree there. I think just the micro-naps being in there and knowing that we are a sleep depraived society for examples I have already provided automatically make this a period film (in 20 years from now we will look back on it as such as there will probably be more advanced medication to battle sleep disorders).

I think it was full of the same subtext that the original had about two wrongs not making a right and the parents stooding down to Freddy's level by seeking revenge. You also got the parents' side of the story by them saying that if you had a child, you would do anything to protect your child. If you had a kid you would understand.

There certainly was commentary pointing to sleep deprevation with the characters staying awake because of Freddy and then enter the micro-nap.

Who knows what will be in an extended version on DVD and Blu-Ray, but sometimes with film, you have to bring your brain to the table, with movies like Night of the Living Dead (in understanding what went on during those times) to kind of get the underlying message in the work. I don't think it was Platinum Dunes' idea to have any kind of cultural relevence in this film, but I do think the writer kind of put it there, under PD's radar out of respect for the character.

[Brett H.]

Night of the Living Dead = Guess Who's Coming to Dinner with zombies?

[The Dream Master]

sometimes with film, you have to bring your brain to the table,

Which is exactly why this one fails. The more you think about it, the more it falls apart. There's no depth; all the things you're claiming it probes is just you putting it there. Sleep deprivation is a universal concept; the kids were taking pills in the original series, but no one was saying it was a commentary about sleep deprivation back then. This movie is no more a period piece than any of the others. Even the stuff about "two wrongs not making a right" isn't developed nearly as well in this as it is in the original because the parents barely do anything.

There certainly was commentary pointing to sleep deprevation...

Like I said, what was the comment? What was this big revelatory message this film had about sleep deprivation? The film doesn't take this as a subject for any commentary at all; it's just a pure plot device. Just because it was made during a time where people might be getting less sleep (which is debatable, considering 9-5 jobs, studying college students, and night clubs have been around a long time :X) doesn't mean it's commenting on it.

[Utellme]

sometimes with film, you have to bring your brain to the table, Yeah well im wondering what people brought that find this film good cause its not.

[The Tall Man]

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner With Zombies?
With Bernie Mac and Kelso?

or...

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner With Zombie?
In a distant future, Obama's daughter brings her new boyfriend to meet the family: Rob Zombie.

T.M., Esq.