1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

[4.50/10] A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)


A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

The new remake of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" doesn't offer much creatively because it is basically the same story as the 1984 film with better special effects. What mars the first half of the film is an insistence on not developing characters. We assume these are high school kids, who mysteriously are devoid of personalities, and then... they die. The biggest problem of all is that the new "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is not scary at all. Scare tactics all center on sound effects and it gets old fast. No one will jump at fright every time Freddy appears on the screen; maybe some will jump at the surprise. This is silly, outdated, and uncreative. Also, despite the modernist take on the narrative, the script still falls back on carbon copies of the original's most memorable sequences and imagery, lazily recreated with unconvincing CGI. This movie is the first time someone else besides Robert Englund has played Krueger, and Haley is without question the best thing about this movie. Unfortunately, the movie's story falls victim to so many horror movie clich├ęs that Haley's creepiness actually suffers because of it. The acting, while stale, is not too shabby. Rooney Mara gives a decent performance. We don't want the character Nancy to die and we, for the most part, are anticipating what happens next. While in some scenes, she can under-act, for the majority of the film, she does her job. Kyle Gallner is probably the best actor of the teenagers, although that's not saying much. He's a very likable character and very interesting. Thomas Dekker isn't too bad, he's just alright. He's neither annoying, nor really exciting. Overall, Samuel Bayer's version of "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is far from terrible, but it's rather bland, dull and unnecessary remake of Wes Craven's 1984 classic.

  • My Rating: 4.50/10
  • Rotten Tomatoes: 13% (3.7/10)
  • IMDb: 5.4/10

8 comments:

Jaccstev said...

This was the worst remake ever. They just made Freddy look retarded and didn't even really stick to a good story line. It was completely pointless remaking it and ruined Wes Craven's story.

Nebular said...

Well, I've seen worse - "Prom Night" for example, but you are right, it was totally pointless remake. Not sure if it ruined Craven's original, because 1984 "Nightmare" was so great, it will be remembered for ages, and this remake will be completely forgotten after a couple of months.

DEZMOND said...

Freddy Krueger gives me some serious creeps. I'm not afraid of death, hunger, pain, poverty ... but Freddy is a real nightmare, especially since he lurks and attacks in your dreams, which are supposed to be your safe haven :((

Nebular said...

Freddy gives me the chills too. That was the main idea of this movie - someone who looks scary, sounds scary and attacks you till sleep in safety. You have the right to be afraid of him :)

Alex J. Cavanaugh said...

This was a move that didn't need a remake, as the original is still quite powerful. It's still effective, cheesy special effects and all.

Nebular said...

Remakes are often unnecessary, as you know, dear Alex, but they're also mostly successful in making money at the box office, due to fans' nostalgia :)

Maurice Mitchell said...

Nedular, you are so right. They know people will flock to the theater based on the name and the memories. This will save them from having to actually write a good story.

Nebular said...

Maurice, thanks for sharing the same thoughts :) Remakes are always lazy, exactly for the reason you've mentioned in your comment. I remember "Quarantine" /the americanized version of the amazing Spanish horror [REC]/ which was a shot-by-shot remake. They added NOTHING, but just re-shot it with different actors.

Oh, and it's Nebular, not Nedular :)