FILM REVIEW: A Nightmare on Elm Street

It is strange to think of how many of the horror icons created in the 80s attained such popularity that they were no longer looked at as villains, but as the heroes of their films. This is true of Freddy Krueger, perhaps more than any other. Much thanks to the off the wall performances by Robert Englund, Freddy became something akin to the James Bond of horror. We rooted for him to dispatch his victims in the most outlandish ways, and we knew he would always have some wisecrack remark to make when he was finished. Now, in the time of remakes and reboots, the filmmaking team behind the new A Nightmare on Elm Street finds a most difficult task. They must find a way to retain the zaniness that longtime fans of the original films want to see while also making Freddy a threatening presence again. They come about halfway in this goal by offering a calmer, less hyperactive Freddy played by Jackie Earle Haley. He stalks his victims slowly and cuts them mercilessly, and he even makes a few quips in a deep guttural voice. Unfortunately, without a more flamboyant arsenal of abilities at his disposal, Freddy relies much too heavily on cheap scares and cliches, keeping the film from being very scary or entertaining.

Most people are likely at least somewhat familiar with the plot of these films, but just to give a refresher: Freddy Krueger, a demonic man with burned flesh invades the dreams of teenagers and attacks them with his trademark weapon, a glove with knives attached to the fingers. Any injuries he inflicts on the kids, up to and including death, carry over into the real world. The only defense is to realize you are dreaming and wake up before Freddy can finish you off. Once Freddy’s targets figure all of this out, they must stay awake long enough to find a way to stop him and save themselves.

As this film is mainly a straight remake of the very first original movie made by Wes Craven 26 years ago, that basic premise is all you need to know. There are no dream warriors or dream children to worry about. We just get a redone version with many of the same scares and kills from the first film in the series. The movie is not an exact replica, though. As previously mentioned, Freddy is much less energetic than in the original. He does not run after the kids, but slowly stalks them. He does not do things like stretch his arms six feet out or transform his appearance. Instead, he makes loud banging noises, or scrapes his blades on a wall to create sparks. He also resorts to cheap scares such as appearing momentarily in a mirror when someone looks up, or appearing in their bed next to them. We are, however, given more information about who Freddy Krueger is and what his connection to his victims is than Wes Craven provided in his original film. The story also takes a pretty large departure from the original by the third act, so this is not a case where the entire original screenplay was recycled. Still, a little more new and different could not have hurt.

There is one interesting opportunity presented by the reuse of scares in this film, though. We are able to see the differences in the special effects techniques used to achieve them between now and 26 years ago. One scare seen in both films is a girl lifted by an invisible force and thrown against the walls and ceiling of a room. In the original, this was achieved with a rotating set. A room was built and placed on machinery that would actually turn the entire set end over end, allowing the actress to roll onto different walls while the camera remained stationary. It was an interesting effect, but the CGI of today makes for a much faster and more brutal scenario. Another example actually looks worse with CGI. Near the beginning of both films, a wall behind a sleeping girl stretches into the shape of Freddy’s hands and face. For the first film, a hole was cut in a wall with spandex spread over it and the actor could just lean through. It looked great, and still looks great today because it was a real physical person stretching through the material. The same cannot be said for the scene in this remake, as the same effect is attempted with subpar CGI. It is fascinating to see how computer graphics are able to improve on some effects while detracting from others, and this is a rare example where we can see two different approaches to identical scenes.

Cheap shocks and a subdued Freddy do not make for a very fun or scary movie, but at least Freddy is not the hero of this film. Freddy Krueger is actually menacing again, and that is, at the very least, a good groundwork for a rebooted franchise. Perhaps in the inevitable sequels the filmmakers will make creative use of the fact that Freddy operates in the fantasy world of dreams and is only limited by his imagination. If they keep the threatening persona in Freddy, but give him more interesting ways to dispatch his victims, maybe without relying too heavily on CGI, A Nightmare on Elm Street could be the start of a great second life for the franchise.

READ MORE