A Nightmare on Elm Street
(D- or .5/4 stars)
1984's 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' scared the ever-lovin' sh*t out of me - still does. Some of the subsequent Elm Street films got stupider, but still scared me, as well. Now, we've got 2010's version (directed by Samuel Bayer), & it absolutely stinks. The plotline is not a carbon copy of the '84 film, but there is a familiarity. The main characters are a group of 5 high schoolers who happen to live on Elm Street: Nancy (Rooney Mara), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), Kris (Katie Cassidy), Jess (Thomas Dekker) & Dean (Kellan Lutz). All of them are experiencing the same nightmare featuring an acid-scarred serial-killer (Jackie Earle Haley) wearing a tattered black & red striped shirt, brimmed hat, & a glove with razor blades as nails ... he is none other than Freddy Krueger.
Freddy - seeming to exist only in their dreams - chases & chastises his victims; then kills them as their dreaming. By doing this, the victims then die in real life, as well. One by one, the teens are terrorized & killed until the only 2 left are insomniacs Nancy & Quentin, who use stimulants of varying sources to stay awake - but can't keep the mini-naps at bay. For them, it's a race against time (and their eye lids) to uncover the awful truth behind Freddy Krueger & find a way to stop him before sleep consumes for forever. Old memories, denials, retribution, & a race to survive commence. But as usual, the only way to live ... is to wake-up.
Freddy was a hell of a lot scarier in 1984; and in several of the subsequent sequels, as well. You know, critics may rag on the original, but that movie still scares the bejesus out of me. It was a first of its kind. Most so-called horror flicks that have come down the pike can owe a lot of their 'originality' to the Elm Street origin. And it did amazingly well to blur the lines btwn. reality & dream world. The visions in those early movies were stunning. And again, as in those movies, we see the visual motifs, here: girls jumping rope, the morphing wall, bedroom slaughters, & my favorite ... the razor blade claw coming up btwn. the girl's legs in the bathtub. One minor positive I can find in this story is an odd, inconsistent, but slightly interesting back story to the characters (involving child molestation).
But overall, this film stinks because there is little-to-no creativity left in the tank (for this franchise). There are no new scares, no surprises. The movie mainly consists of various teens (whom we barely know) being haunted by Freddy in their dreams & then being slashed to death. I mean ... so WHAT? How is that scary? Why would we care? Any creepy atmosphere that the original film(s) exhibited is all but gone now. And on top of that, while Jackie Earle Haley's portrayal is fine, Freddy (as written here) lacks any of the gruesome flair & chilling personality that he used to have. Robert Englund has nothing to worry about {haha}. 2010's 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' has very little going for it, & I'm already forgetting the movie one day after having seen it. Boo.
Freddy - seeming to exist only in their dreams - chases & chastises his victims; then kills them as their dreaming. By doing this, the victims then die in real life, as well. One by one, the teens are terrorized & killed until the only 2 left are insomniacs Nancy & Quentin, who use stimulants of varying sources to stay awake - but can't keep the mini-naps at bay. For them, it's a race against time (and their eye lids) to uncover the awful truth behind Freddy Krueger & find a way to stop him before sleep consumes for forever. Old memories, denials, retribution, & a race to survive commence. But as usual, the only way to live ... is to wake-up.
Freddy was a hell of a lot scarier in 1984; and in several of the subsequent sequels, as well. You know, critics may rag on the original, but that movie still scares the bejesus out of me. It was a first of its kind. Most so-called horror flicks that have come down the pike can owe a lot of their 'originality' to the Elm Street origin. And it did amazingly well to blur the lines btwn. reality & dream world. The visions in those early movies were stunning. And again, as in those movies, we see the visual motifs, here: girls jumping rope, the morphing wall, bedroom slaughters, & my favorite ... the razor blade claw coming up btwn. the girl's legs in the bathtub. One minor positive I can find in this story is an odd, inconsistent, but slightly interesting back story to the characters (involving child molestation).
But overall, this film stinks because there is little-to-no creativity left in the tank (for this franchise). There are no new scares, no surprises. The movie mainly consists of various teens (whom we barely know) being haunted by Freddy in their dreams & then being slashed to death. I mean ... so WHAT? How is that scary? Why would we care? Any creepy atmosphere that the original film(s) exhibited is all but gone now. And on top of that, while Jackie Earle Haley's portrayal is fine, Freddy (as written here) lacks any of the gruesome flair & chilling personality that he used to have. Robert Englund has nothing to worry about {haha}. 2010's 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' has very little going for it, & I'm already forgetting the movie one day after having seen it. Boo.