I am not sure if this poster is from the new A Nightmare on Elm Street. In a similar fashion, I really was not sure what I was watching when I saw the film.
I would like to say that the only reason I am reviewing this, as opposed to Puck, is because I just happen to have seen it first. Puck has given us an incredibly insightful and brilliant analysis of the original franchise thus far, and I am eager for the remaining installments. I also, having not had a computer for a while, have not contributed anything to the site as of late. So, with Puck’s approval, here is my review.
I will spare you a plot synopsis, as it is the same story. Freddy hunting and killing teenagers in their dreams as revenge. Between the 8 other movies that feature Freddy and Puck’s recent reviews, if you are not already familiar with the plot, I question your comprehension skills and you will not find this review helpful at all.
So, I guess the thing that bothered me the most about this movie, is trying to figure out what the hell the point of it was. Not the story, the movie specifically. It was some bizarre cross breed of re-imagining, remake, and reboot. All I know is that I kept re asking myself, “What the fuck?” during this thing. While the basic plot is the exact same as the original, there were many differences. There is a Nancy, but her last name is Holbrook rather than Thompson. Other than her and Freddy, no other characters were named the same. Oddly enough there was a Jesse, and as I neglected to notice while watching the movie, Puck pointed out that the main character in Nightmare 2 is named Jesse. Also, there was a character named Kris, perhaps a reference to Kristen in Nightmare 3. Also, Nancy worked at a diner, like Alice did in Nightmare 4. These facts alone can be used to argue that the remake category is out the window. However, the choice was made to include the some of the same scenes, some as they were in the original and some slightly altered. This really distracted me. I could not help comparing the movie to the original and asking myself why certain choices were made. For example, there is a scene in which Kris, who is closest to being the Tina character from the original, has a nightmare in class and wakes up screaming. This happened to Nancy in the original. Yet the rest of the events of the film that involve her, were more close to (if not the same as) the events that involved Tina in the original. What purpose did making that choice serve? Was it solely to be able to classify this as a re-imagining? I would say no, as this movie was not so much “imagined,” as it was “stolen” This was a really lazy re-whateveritwas. I would have preferred that they fully committed to something. Remake it scene by scene even, at least I would not be confused. I would have liked if they had completely different events happening, but say, left the bathtub scene in there (not because of nudity, jackass, there isn’t any in that scene) as an homage or something. I also think the fact the Freddy is dressed exactly the same also disqualifies this as a re-imagining. In my opinion, I think he looked more like an actual burn victim that Robert Englund did (no offense to him, he is and will always be the only Freddy as far as I am concerned. Also that would be a make up issue, not an acting issue). There were other things that I took issue with, such as the absence of Nancy’s father (but I guess technically that was not really Nancy, so that may be irrelevant) but I think I have made my point.
As far as the film outside of the pre-existing universe it was lifted from, I would say it was passable. Jack Earle Haley did a decent enough job. Freddy was quite mean, and even swore regularly in this one. He made some jokes, but was hardly the the stand up comedian that Freddy was in the later films of the franchise. No one else in the film was especially good, but the writing was not that particularly great. The only time I actually felt bad when someone died was not because I connected with them, but rather because of the brutality of their death. This film was quite gory. I was kind of hoping for that and was rewarded, but the suspense was sacrificed a little. That whole, “someone looking around, saying ‘Hello?’ then someone jumps out of some place” wears a little thin after the 10th time it happens. Besides the fact that it is not a new technique. The use of “micronaps” was a tad annoying in that respect as that is where a lot of this activity took place. I did like the way that Freddy’s origin was told, and that the kids all somehow knew each other, but they had to figure out how. That was executed pretty well I thought. Another thing I liked was that this was set in modern times but there was no emphasis on that. As opposed to say, Platinum Dunes’s (and New Line Cinema for that matter) other re-whateveritwas, Friday the 13th. That film was rampant with iPods, glowsticks and GPS devices, as if to scream, “Look at me! I am Friday the 13th, but 29 years later!” This one was not. The gadgets that were in this were all used minimally and simply as products of the time. Nothing really new here, just your typical slasher film. While it did not break any ground, on the whole, and again ignoring the original franchise, it was a popcorn movie at best.
I found it outright impossible not to compare this to the Wes Craven Nightmare. So much so, that it was distracting. If you have not seen the original, then you might like this. But I do not think it is possible to like them both. For if you like one, you will find the other inadequate (and by inadequate I mean “much like parts 2-Freddy vs Jason”).
Comments
Post a Comment