Perhaps it’s that Hollywood is running out of ideas or the viewing public is evermore desensitized. But “A Nightmare on Elm Street” does little to live up to the original that made Freddy Krueger one of Hollywood’s most-recognizable villains and
Perhaps it’s that Hollywood is running out of ideas or the viewing public is evermore desensitized. But “A Nightmare on Elm Street” does little to live up to the original that made Freddy Krueger one of Hollywood’s most-recognizable villains and Halloween costumes.
The story follows the same arc and unfolding of the original, including borrowing shots from the original. Teen after teen is slaughtered in a nightmare dreamscape as the hows and whys of Freddy’s past are revealed and eventually the heroine Nancy Thompson (Rooney Mara) figures out how to do him in… for now.
In this redux of the first “Nightmare,” Freddy (Jackie Earle Haley) is a pedophile rather than merely a child murderer — a shift that gives some additional menace and creepiness to the character, but comes with its own set of drawbacks — it’s the wrong type of creepy for a horror movie.
Other than that, little changes are offered besides a slightly-more polished production and slightly-more-convincing effects — little reason to justify redoing a movie. Think of the “Star Wars” remakes, which actually got less compelling with enhanced digital effects.
The story gives no new twists and has even less force than the original. For a horror film, the violence has not been pumped up to the modern-day levels and expectations of the “Saw” franchise or “Hostel.” Although even that at this time would be pointless, it would only put this film five years behind, not 20.
No edge has been given to the cinematic style to add any real chills. Perhaps the trick of having Freddy turn up next to you in the closet while you frantically stared through the slats worked 26 years ago, but today it brings no shock. Wes Craven knew that trick was dated and evolved it in “Scream.” It leaves the only reason for this film to be one of box-office profit and by that standard the film is a success, topping the weekend box office at $32 million.
Haley dons the burnt makeup and razor glove for this turn as Freddy Krueger. It’s an iconic role and so carries the challenges of living up to its predecessor. Haley does a serviceable job as Krueger but there is a noticeable disconnect between the teen-murdering Freddy Krueger and the child-molesting Fred Krueger. Haley does better as the disturbing child molester than he does as the violent monster. Indeed, it is in those moments at the film’s pivotal point when Freddy Krueger is acting on his sexual compulsion and feeling that he himself is the victim of the children whom he trusted to keep their secrets, that this Freddy is most frightening. While this may be the film’s most horrifying moments, it is an entirely different brand of horror and one not best suited to this genre.
Freddy has also lost something in this makeup incarnation. The deep raw scars carried by the first Freddy (Robert Englund) that also let him fiercely emote his threatening nonchalance to the value of life, are lost to a plastering of melted tissue that resemble more a dated celebrity now being featured on an E! reality series than any true monster.
Perhaps the movie’s greatest flaw is that it predicts its own sequel. With perhaps the exception of “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare,” the “Nightmare” series faltered with each new installment. This latest retelling of the original is not only guilty of continuing the decline but shamelessly announces that it will continue to do so. It captures the worst aspect of the “Nightmare” franchise twice. To truly give a new twist to this movie, it would have let Freddy and itself stay dead.
