A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - Reviews...

[bueno bob]

Well, I meant to post a review of this quite a lot earlier, but was unavoidably detained... :biggrin:

I went in hoping for the best and expecting a tremendous misfire. As a lifelong Elm Street fan (1984, bitches!), I have a lot of love for the original movie. I also have a lot of love for the series as a whole, although I can freely admit that almost every entry into the series with the exception of Dream Warriors and Wes Craven's New Nightmare have been garbage.

Freddy's Revenge I can somewhat forgive for it's "I'm possessed by the spirit of Freddy!" business, because the rules about who Freddy Krueger was and what he could (and couldn't) do really hadn't been established at that point.

The Dream Master capitalized on the "dirty old man" aspect of Freddy, but not in a good way. The humor came in and with it, the sinister element began to deteriorate. Of course, it make bank at the theater and the "MTV Freddy" angle proved it was a cash crop, so...I guess I can't too much blame them for making him a one-line zinger by the time The Dream Child came up.

Freddy's Dead was a really, really, really bad episode of Twin Peaks, and based on the layout of Springwood, the characters and the concept of a demented town of adults, anybody familiar with the both series could easily see where Rachel Talalay's main source of influence came from.

Freddy vs. Jason was basically fucked from the start....

That said, I can safely say that "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is the most satisfying entry into the series since Wes Craven's New Nightmare, and the best "in story" film since Dream Warriors.

The prologue sequence in the diner really sets the tone for the whole film - of course, if you're expecting grade A acting performances, you're in for a horrible disappointment (as a lifelong Elm Street fan, I've never went into one of these films expecting THAT). However, the diner sequence is really well done and sufficiently gory for my tastes - we get an introductory overview of our cast and Freddy is quickly revealed to be anything but the dancing goofster of old. Rest assured, this is NOT your father's Freddy. All in all, he does an awesome job and should be extremely proud of himself.

Jackie Earle Haley is definitely the breakout performance of the film. He brings a level of evil, manipulation and sadism to the role that, quite frankly, Robert Englund never achieved with the role after Dream Warriors (and seldom achieved throughout the first three original movies). The introduction of the micro-nap aspect to staying awake adds a bit of realism to the concept of sleep deprivation and, to my mind, made the movie flow a bit faster.

The dream sequences are almost completely CGI, but in the aspect that they ARE dream sequences, I can appreciate that. The special effects considerably trump that of the original (and if you re-watch the original, you can plainly see that the originals haven't held up well over the years...notably the part where Nancy slips into the stairs...).

As far as Nancy herself, my major gripe was that she was a bit more reactive than proactive and allowed her boyfriend to mostly call the shots with saving her; beyond that, I was hoping the score would be a bit more keyboard/electronic influenced like the original was, but that's minor.

As it stands, I thoroughly enjoyed it after making myself leave my preconceived notions at the door. It's not groundbreaking work and the original still stands up as the best Elm Street movie of all time, but it's worth the price of admission and definitely worth checking out, as long as you can keep an open mind about it.

Grade: B

(Imapus, you can mail me the money) ;)

[Dan]

Now That's What You Call A Great Review.:D

McFly,Take Note.:D

[bueno bob]

Now That's What You Call A Great Review.:D

McFly,Take Note.:D

Thank you, Dan.

[Terry]

I'd have to totally disagree that A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) was really worth the price of admission, certainly not in comparison to the original.

While perhaps the biggest surprise was that Jackie Earl Haley did manage to turn in a solid performance as Freddy (when I think about it, ANY actor hoping to establish - or in Haley's case, reestablish - themselves by taking on a role that was DEFINED by Robert Englund is engaging in an uphill battle at best), for me that was really the only bright spot...and even that was a bit of a mixed bag, as Haley was watchable, but at no point did he really make the Kruger character his own or in any way make me forget how totally suited Englund was for that role.

The rest of the cast was completely disposable. While I can't really say as much for the rest of the sequels, the original Nightmare On Elm Street had a cast of characters/actors that were, to me, just as memorable as what Englund brought to the table. The lot that populated the remake were bland, uninteresting and nondescript to the point that when they started getting knocked off one-by-one, I couldn't have cared less (that emo-faggy dude that was supposed to be the Johnny Depp character from the original I single out as especially lame - he basically reprised the same role he had in Jennifer's Body, another flick that wasn't all that great but DID have the advantage of Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried making out).

All in all the Nightmare remake suffers from the same lack of originality (perhaps something default in a remake) and sense of purpose beyond taking the easy way out and cashing in on franchise familiarity as the recent My Bloody Valentine and Friday the 13th remakes did. I mean, say what you will about Rob Zombie's Halloween flicks, but at least he brought a little of something new to the table (even if I didn't care much for it) other than 3-D gimmicks and CGI effects. That stuff SHOULD just be icing on top of a decent story and decent performances, but in those three films the whole cake is made out of that icing. If I'm correct, New Line Cinema was behind the recent MBV, Ft13th AND Nightmare remakes. Am sensing a pattern here...

The only horror remake I've seen in the last 5 years that, to my mind, was just as good (and, in some senses, better) than the original was The Hills Have Eyes of several years back.

[bueno bob]

Well thought out and written review, Terry. Thanks! Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy it, but on a personal note, I still think the remake kicks the shit out of most of the latter entries in the franchise. While nothing will ever top the original (something I think we both agree on), I have to say that this is one of the more satisfying experiences I've ever had in a theater watching Elm Street. Upping Freddy to an official child molester (something insinuated but never explicitly stated) really added a lot to the overall effect of disgust I had for him - they did the unthinkable by actually making Freddy the villain again, and I think a return to that format made me a lot happier.

Again, Jackie did a bang up job with putting himself in the role - of course, Bob's the "real" Freddy still, but since the sequel has been greenlit, I expect to see more excellent work from him in the next movie or three and I can definitely see Freddy becoming more of a symbolic horror figure, like Dracula, Frankenstein's monster or the Wolfman. Timeless tales and timeless villains can always be played by different actors, but a good story is a good story - Elm Street, regardless of how it's interpreted, really touched a nerve and the fact that it's continuing is either cashing in or a direct homage to a good tale. The guys at Platinum Dunes, some of whom I've spoken with, are REAL big fans of horror remakes they do, and they have a lot of fun tipping their hat to the films that influenced them. I think Wes and Robert should be honored by that, and I hope they are. The same accusations of "soulless cash grab" could probably be thrown at any horror remake over the years, I guess, but deeper than that is the fact that the names of Leatherface, Jason and Freddy now resonate in this generation much like Dracula and Frankenstein did in previous generations - they're iconic and a mark of our times.

Honestly, I don't really have a problem with that. I rather enjoyed the Friday the 13th remake and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake as well (although in the case of TCM, I do feel that it kinda pittered out a bit at the end). Additionally, I enjoyed Rob Zombie's Halloween remake(s) as well.

That said, Samuel Bayer has said that his next project will be an action film of some measure and he won't be returning to the Elm Street sequel. I'm interested in seeing what a new director might be able to do for it. Who knows, maybe somebody will convince Rob Zombie to give it a shot?

I expect that, by the next sequel, Rooney Mara will play Nancy a little more aggressively (or so is my hope). I'm hoping that what they were looking for here was a quiet, mousy girl next door who eventually grows into a strong, determined and aggressive fighter on her own over the span of a movie or two, rather than the span of an hour and a half. Word has it that the next movie won't draw from any of the others and will supposedly be all original material, and as long as they keep up the pace, I'll fairly sure I'll be entertained.

As a real Elm Street nitpicker (I even had the balls to demand my money back after the piece of shit that was Freddy's Dead...fucking GAWD AWFUL and the worst Elm Street film EVER...made The Dream Child look like Oscar material by comparison, and like I said Freddy Vs. Jason was fucked from jump street), I walked out very satisfied with what was put before me.

[Terry]

I'd tend to agree that the Nightmare films after Dream Warriors were, on the whole, fairly weak in comparison with the first / original Nightmare On Elm Street through Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. The series devolved into a slew of movies where, much like the Friday The 13th franchise, it became difficult to distinguish one from the next although the unifying bond was they were all substandard to the first few flicks of the franchise.

As for the remakes, and specifically the Nightmare remake, I suppose to say I hated them would (in spite of my criticisms) be slightly harsh. I guess a general lack of satisfaction would be closer to the mark. These remakes just seem to have little point other than to make a buck by retracing old steps therefore taking the path of least creative resistance. It doesn't smack of any real effort, so it shouldn't be surprising that the results are wanting. Yes, films are made to make money, and I adjust my expectations downward accordingly for the horror flick remakes, but what it's hard for me to say many positive things about them when I'm failing to be entertained while watching them.

It's not just the horror genre, either. Across the board, I think people have become so used to using the lowest common denominator when seeing movies these days that they'll try and pick diamonds out of dogshit, when there aren't any diamonds to be found. Not even zircons. Hollywood, in response, continues to churn out swill precisely because people still, for reasons unclear to me, flock to theaters and pay money to see recycled plots and ideas executed by people who can't act. Maybe, like me, they still enjoy the experience of seeing a movie in the cinema and will continue going despite the slim pickings out there.

All of that said, there WAS one bright spot in the Nightmare remake: a preview for a Piranha remake...in 3D no less!!

THAT should be a glorious piece-of-shit film, with the additional plus of the 3-D glasses which are sure to induce severe migranes within 15 minutes of putting them on, and I honestly plan to catch it on opening weekend...can't wait;)

[Diamondjimi]

Good reviews guys, thanks.
I'll def. check this one out for myself. I think getting a different actor to play Freddie was a good call.
Shit, Haley looks creepy enough without the makeup. Good call there...


(Note to Buttflag: This is how you post a movie review.)

[Seshmeister]

Talk about Catch 22...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8660373.stm



Lack of sleep 'linked to early death'

Getting less than six hours sleep a night can lead to an early grave, UK and Italian researchers have warned.

They said people regularly having such little sleep were 12% more likely to die over a 25-year period than those who got an "ideal" six to eight hours.

They also found an association between sleeping for more than nine hours and early death, although that much sleep may merely be a marker of ill health.

Sleep journal reports the findings, based on 1.5m people in 16 studies.

The study looked at the relationship between sleep and mortality by reviewing earlier studies from the UK, US and European and East Asian countries.

Premature death from all causes was linked to getting either too little or too much sleep outside of the "ideal" six to eight hours per night.

But while a lack of sleep may be a direct cause of ill health, ultimately leading to an earlier death, too much sleep may merely be a marker of ill health already, the UK and Italian researchers believe.

Professor Francesco Cappuccio, leader of the Sleep, Health and Society Programme at the UK's University of Warwick, said: "Modern society has seen a gradual reduction in the average amount of sleep people take and this pattern is more common amongst full-time workers, suggesting that it may be due to societal pressures for longer working hours and more shift-work.

"On the other hand, the deterioration of our health status is often accompanied by an extension of our sleeping time."

If the link between a lack of sleep and death is truly causal, it would equate to over 6.3 million attributable deaths in the UK in people over 16 years of age.

Prof Cappuccio said more work was needed to understand exactly why sleep seemed to be so important for good health.

Professor Jim Horne, of the Loughborough Sleep Research Centre, said other factors may be involved rather than sleep per se.

"Sleep is just a litmus paper to physical and mental health. Sleep is affected by many diseases and conditions, including depression," he said.

And getting improved sleep may not make someone better or live longer, he said.

"But having less than five hours a night suggests something is probably not right.

"Five hours is insufficient for most people and being drowsy in the day increases your risk of having an accident if driving or operating dangerous machinery."

[bueno bob]

Good reviews guys, thanks.
I'll def. check this one out for myself. I think getting a different actor to play Freddie was a good call.
Shit, Haley looks creepy enough without the makeup. Good call there...


(Note to Buttflag: This is how you post a movie review.)

Well, I hope you enjoy it. I did, for sure. Kind of an interesting (but not entirely unexpected) response - he critics hate it (not surprising for an Elm Street film...while they now wax poetic about the original series, I seem to remember original reviews being extraordinarily negative back in the day as well)...the fanbase seems pretty split right down the middle.

[Seshmeister]

Main BBC critic wasn't keen but maybe not for the reasons you might think...

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dzx_Fo9z_H8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dzx_Fo9z_H8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>