Film Festival

The new remake of 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' is dead on arrival

A whole lot of slick can't hide the hollow center of this remake

The M/C Review: 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' is dead on arrival

Rooney Mara catches a potentially very uncomfortable nap in the new Platinum Dunes remake of 'A Nightmare On Elm Street'

Credit: Warner Bros.

I found this film deeply upsetting, but not in the ways the producers or the director intended.

"A Nightmare On Elm Street" has always been a franchise I've found deeply uncomfortable.  I saw the first film theatrically.  I was 14 at the time.  I thought it was effective and inventive and stood out from the typical slasher fare that was being released by that point in the '80s.  I still think it's one of the best things Wes Craven ever did.  Beyond that first film, though, I find the franchise loathsome.  Freddy Krueger is an uncommonly grotesque creation even in the world of movie killers, and if there's any flaw with the original Craven film, it's the way he sidesteps the nature of Freddy's real-world crimes.  He was described as a "child killer" in the first film, and the idea of molestation was carefully avoided by Craven entirely.  By softening the point in the first film, it made the character more palatable, and by the time there were Halloween costumes for kids based on the Krueger design, it was obvious that no one really understood the monster they were watching or releasing.  The way they quickly turned him from a figure of fear into a bad stand-up comic with claws rendered pretty much every one of the sequels a gutless mess.  I listened to someone at a press day recently explain which ones are the "good" sequels and which ones are the "bad" sequels, but I've never been able to get behind that idea.  I think the entire notion of spinning him into a recurrent character robbed him of all effectiveness and led to incredibly mean-spirited and wrongly-silly films.

Shooting dreams on film has always been tricky, because the real nature of dreaming is non-narrative.  You may wake up and remember the broad strokes of what happened in a dream, but the vast majority of what happens between our ears while we're out cold is random and strange and so surreal that it would be impossible to film.  The notion of tapping into that in the form of a person who can step into that landscape and shape it to his own rotten ends is a powerful one, and the original film by Craven gets that as right as any of them do.  There's a mood in the film like reality is totally up for grabs, and the style, mandated in large part by the film's budget, works in its favor because there's no easy indicator of what's real and what's not.  The Freddy Krueger in that first film (and even in the second one, to some extent) is anything but funny.  He's a vile, twisted thing, and the punishments he heaps on the kids in the first film aren't wacky and jokey.

Samuel Bayer, ostensible director of the new remake of "A Nighmare On Elm Street," makes lovely images at times, and his work as a music video director has been marked by any number of stylish and inventive clips over the years.  Based on the evidence of this film, though, I'd say he has no understanding of how to stage a scene between actors or how to create any sort of sustained narrative tension.  This movie is inert, so pretty that it seems unconcerned with being scary, and it fumbles the good ideas contained in the script with an almost willful efficiency.  It doesn't help that he's put together an attractive cast that manages to bring a collective near-total absence of charisma to their roles here.  I would never hold Heather Langenkamp up as an example of great acting, but I can't call Rooney Mara's non-performance much of an improvement.  She mopes and mumbles her way through the film, just like her co-star Kyle Gallner, who appears to have made a career out of the one particular open-mouthed sad-eyed look of crumpled horror that he wears for most of this film's running time.  Katie Cassidy is a long-legged stack of gorgeous, which explains why she's appeared in other slasher remakes like "Black Christmas" and "When A Stranger Calls" as well, and she looks great while she walks through these extravagantly art-directed dreamscapes, but she has little to do besides flash those stems and die.

The adult cast fares almost as badly.  Connie Britton and Clancy Brown are the two main Elm Street parents in the film, dealing with the buried guilt over what they did to Krueger all those years ago, but there's no real sense of urgency to any of their scenes.  Considering what we see in the flashback to Krueger's death and what he's supposed to have done, it all feels like surface.  These are good actors... given real depth to play, they could easily have made this matter.  And I think there's one truly great idea introduced in the script by Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer, the notion that Freddy may have been innocent of the molestation accusations that led to his death, and his revenge is on the children for lying and getting him killed.  The film introduces the idea but never really commits to it, and for all the busy work involving the kids running web searches via Giga Blast (a weird Google-stand-in that gets a whole lot of screen time), the mystery is never very compelling.  Everything's offered up at the exact moment it needs to be.  I've seen "Scooby-Doo" episodes with better mysteries than this, and if that's the case, then why bother trying to build any mystery into the film in the first place?

I haven't addressed Freddy himself yet, and that's because it's the most frustrating part of this remake.  Yes, casting Jackie Earle Haley is a good idea.  I've said for years that Englund was no longer capable of playing the part as a monster, and Haley certainly talked a good game in all his press on the movie.  He is betrayed first by the make-up, which makes him look like a wet alien cat.  It's not scary.  It's not memorable.  And for most of the film, it's barely visible.  And yet they hew so closely to his wardrobe that it just strikes me as a redesign for no reason.  He's given way too many one-liners here, and his performance never walks that line of did-he-or-didn't-he that the script wants to suggest, so the result is pretty much one-note and never manages to bring anything fresh or interesting to our understanding of Krueger as a character.

I vented a bit about karaoke culture last night, and this is one of the films that set me off in the first place.  Bayer's rendition of this particular song adds nothing to the mix, and manages to mute everything that Craven's original film got right.  I've only liked one of the Platinum Dunes remakes, last year's "Friday The 13th," and that's because the original film was such a lightweight little doodle that it's hard to get it wrong.  With both "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and this film, they've managed to take movies of real weight and substance, movies that stand above the rest of the genre precisely because of how perfectly they blend theme and style and real fear, and they've turned them into MTV videos.  Slick, soulless, overly stylized MTV videos.  I hated sitting through this film because there was no point.  There's no point in making it.  No point in watching it.  The only "point" here is the cash it'll put into Warner's pockets this weekend, and the worst thing about it is how they took a genuinely promising and rich property, one that could have easily been reinterpreted by a strong filmmaker, and turned it into another forgettable cash grab that no one will be talking about a year from now.  In a way, I wish the film were worse, because that would make it easier to dismiss.  It's the dull mediocrity of the entire endeavor that I find so upsetting, one more case of a pale echo being passed off as something new. 

"A Nightmare On Elm Street" will give me bad dreams, but only of studio executives counting up their filthy lucre made off of a generation willing to accept this sort of spoon-fed garbage, and not of the monster they've so completely neutered by this point.

Can't get enough of Motion/Captured? Don't miss a post with daily HitFix Blog Alerts. Sign up now.

Don't miss out. Add Motion/Captured to your iGoogle, My Yahoo or My MSN experience by clicking here.

Not part of the HitFix Nation yet? Take 90 seconds and sign up today.

You can e-mail me at drew@hitfix.com or follow me on Twitter, where I'm DrewAtHitFix.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Anonymous

    I would be worried about this but Drew seems to hate so many movies lately that it's hard to take him seriously. Still insightful and fun to read regardless.

    April 29, 2010 at 4:31PM EST Reply to Comment
    • I have to agree with you about Drew not liking many movies lately, but then I myself haven't like many movies lately. I don't think he's the problem...

      April 29, 2010 at 4:41PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Troy Gotta say, I've been agreeing with Drew A LOT lately. In my opinion, he was dead-on with his disappointment with Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland and right about How To Train Your Dragon being quality.

      It's not Drew's reviews that are weak, it's definitely the movies that are weak so far this year.

      April 29, 2010 at 6:08PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    daggor

    I really think that Englund could pull off a scary version of Krueger, and I wish they would give him the chance.

    April 29, 2010 at 4:33PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Fargo_talkback_profile

    Mr. Gunderson

    I don't know why I had hope for this one, but I did. I actually found the Texas Chainsaw remake pretty unsettling and thought the F13 remake had the requisite boobs and blood but also had the audacity to be incredibly boring. There was a real opportunity to make a good remake of Nightmare but (according to almost everybody) it seems like that opportunity was completely squandered. Bummer.

    April 29, 2010 at 4:48PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    JoeK

    I saw the first one on home video on a Sunday afternoon and didn't sleep until late Monday when my body gave out. It freaked me out and deserves comparison to Halloween in terms of what Craven pulled off with a twin and tape budget (shows how strong the idea and his execution was). I recall enjoying the first few sequels primarily for laughs only though. Haley seems an inspired choice but I worry a little about him already getting typecast by people with no appreciation for how good an actor he has shown he is of late.

    I'm in your corner on this and the other takedowns of vomited up pop culture though - even though I'm uncertain if even audience rejection will stop it anytime soon.

    April 29, 2010 at 4:55PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    dman

    i have to disagree about englund... he did pull off serious and creepy freddy in new nightmare 10 years later... after the campier sequels. so he could have pulled it off again. but i thought haley was a good idea. however... just like how englund fell victim to the mostly weak (but fun) sequels... i guess haley has fallen victim too.

    April 29, 2010 at 4:56PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    mrxavier344

    They like this

    April 29, 2010 at 5:15PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    DJaye

    I haven't obviously seen this one yet, but I feel you're way off on the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre... The remakes created a much more believable and much scarier monster than the originals. Having seen the original and all the subsequent sequels, that creature seemed for lack of a better word, like a retarded kid with a chainsaw... way too many scenes of goofy sounds. Those movies were more comical than anything, hardly scary at all. The remake created a much more intimidating and larger than life character with real terror..

    April 29, 2010 at 5:18PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Yeah, I don't even know what to say to that. The original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" feels like a documentary about something real, while Nispel's remake is a repellant, ignorant movie with none of the original's social underpinnings to make it anything but dumb scares.

      April 29, 2010 at 5:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      NOES Drew, that is an extremely elitist thing to say and the reasons why movie fans are beyond stupid. Being one myself, I fall prey to stupidity sometimes but come on, get off your high horse.

      April 29, 2010 at 6:02PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew It's elitist to prefer one version of a film to another? It's elitist to think that the version that came from a genuine place of anger at a time when our culture was pulling itself apart has more to say than a version made by a music-video director who thinks backstory makes a monster more frightening instead of less? Then I guess I'm elitist, and I'm not sure what a horse, high or otherwise, has to do with it.

      April 29, 2010 at 6:11PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JoeK A revisionist take on the original like this one appears to totally discount the very relevant context of the era in which it was made and what, if any, films could be counted as contemporaries.

      TCM in its day was (and remains) some seriously messed up and taboo crap and was genuinely horrifying in ways that people that have come of age in the era of torture porn and the internet literally cannot relate to. In horror film terms its like flippantly observing the editing in Kane as pedestrian.

      April 29, 2010 at 6:19PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      stormshadow4life I wasn't the biggest fan of the remake of TCM....but seriously....calling the original "documentary-like" just sounds like someone is wearing his nostalgia glasses. It's a total B movie all the way. While we're at it, Henry: PoaSK is a terrible and laughable movie....I'm sick of hearing people going gaga over it.

      April 29, 2010 at 10:17PM EST
  • Friends_of_eddie_coyle_talkback_profile

    Evil Dead Junkie

    Disappointing to hear. Though I am curious about your take on New Nightmare.

    I revisited the series for my own blog this last week and what really surprised me is what a zero sum gain, The Nightmare films are (from an artistic not a financial standpoint obviously).

    Even the "good" ones like Russell's competent Dream Warriors, and Renny Harlin's big slice of dumb Dream Master, are at best fun, dumb FX shows, with an unseemly seedy underscoring. And when A Nightmare film fails the way say the second or sixth one dose, it sails pass bad into offensive.

    The problem with New Nightmare, for me is that though its a strong idea, and Craven is obviously energized by it, the explanation he comes up with for Freddy's return is so staggeringly dumb that the suspension of disbelief never happens.

    If he had left the explanation ambiguous ala Lunar Park, it could have been phenomenal.

    April 29, 2010 at 5:22PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Trama

    I have to disagree - which is rare when I read your reviews. I'm usually in absolute agreement, note for note. I thought the movie wasn't as good as the original, on par with 3, and better than the others.

    But it seems like your issues have less to do with the failures of a remake then the issues you have with the notion of A Nightmare on Elm street, period. Even when you mention Craven's original, it's not glowing.

    But it's not like Freddy is the only monster that the general public has glossed over. I mean, isn't Universal's Dracula a sexual predator? But we have no problem putting that visage on candy or cereal or plastic masks.

    I think the PD guys really did try to stay true to the core of Nightmare. Is it flawless? No. There are some Act One issues that Drew mentions. But if you are a Freddy fan, I think you'll like it.

    April 29, 2010 at 7:57PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I'll be clear. I love the original Craven film. I hate every other Freddy Krueger movie. I thought they had an opportunity here to make a movie in which Krueger was a real monster again, and instead, I think they had no idea what to do with him.

      April 29, 2010 at 8:17PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Dan Finklestein

    Re: "I've said for years that Englund was no longer capable of playing the part as a monster..."

    Don't agree with this at all. The idea that every franchise needs a reboot to rectify the sins of past entries is as wrongheaded the Hollywood karaoke culture you rail against. Englund ia an actor. He acts. If the script calls for a scary interpretation of Freddy, he could and would hit his mark. With your attitude Drew, Stallone would never have made another Rocky or Rambo, and Ford would never be Indy again. When the Bond producers screwed up with Moonraker, they didn't wipe the slate clean and bring in some pre-pubescent twentysomething. They got a good script, kept Moore, and let the rest fall into place. I'm not a Freddy fanboy - to tell the truth, I really couldn't give a tinker's damn about this series. But the excuses being trotted out to justify the dismissal of Englund are laughable. It's like saying Pierce Brosnan was too old to play Bond. Or that Schumacher had somehow killed Batman because B&R only made 350 million. All hyperbolic garbage.

    April 30, 2010 at 2:34AM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Sorry you don't agree, but I think Englund is so entrenched in playing Freddy a certain way that it is ridiculous to imagine he would suddenly start playing it as a whole new character, which it would have to be in order to be scary again.

      If nothing else, I've learned there are a lot of people who were satisfied with the absolute garbage that is the "Nightmare" series.

      April 30, 2010 at 3:00AM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew And, sorry, but the Indy and Bond examples pretty much make my case. The Moore films were always fairly bad, and they just got worse as they wore on. If they'd rethought the series after "Moonraker," we would have avoided "Octopussy" and "A View To A Kill." That would have been a very good thing. And a world without "Indy IV" is a world I could happily live in.

      April 30, 2010 at 3:02AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Dan Finklestein

    Re: "Sorry you don't agree, but I think Englund is so entrenched in playing Freddy a certain way that it is ridiculous to imagine he would suddenly start playing it as a whole new character, which it would have to be in order to be scary again."

    Who said anything about a "whole new character"?
    Englund could just play Freddy dark and menacing like he did in part one. There. Problem solved. Keeping with the Bond example, after the over-the-top Moonraker, Moore plyed the role straight in For Your Eyes Only. The result was probably the most highly acclaimed Bond of the 80s.

    Re: “And, sorry, but the Indy and Bond examples pretty much make my case. The Moore films were always fairly bad, and they just got worse as they wore on.”

    Sorry, this is just factually wrong. Moore’ series didn’t even get good until three films in - when the series took a hiatus and came back strong with the oscar nominated "The Spy Who Loved Me." As far as actively wanting Indiana Jones rebooted, all I can say is, you must not be feeling quite yourself today. Most film buffs wanted Shia LaBeouf's character to fall off a cliff, not take over the fedora and bullwhip. Contrary to what you're proposing, Indiana Jones, Rambo, and the older Bond entries, prove that franchises are durable. A bad sequel is undone by a good sequel. Not by recasting the lead with one of the Jonas Brothers and radically going back to square one.

    Re: "If they'd rethought the series after 'Moonraker,' we would have avoided 'Octopussy' and 'A View To A Kill.' That would have been a very good thing."

    But they did “re-think” the series after Moonraker. Hence, the more Connery-esque For Your Eyes Only, widely held as one of the series' best. I'm not going to debate the merits of Octopussy, but I will just say it's probably the last classic Bond movie ever made.

    April 30, 2010 at 3:27AM EST Reply to Comment
    • I have to say, Moore was one of my favorites. I'd take A View To A Kill and Octopussy over the Timothy Dalton era any day.

      April 30, 2010 at 3:37AM EST
    • 000_vulcan_smiley_alternate_talkback_profile

      Trekscribbler Dalton had one acceptable outing as Bond ... the one that ended with the truck chase. I couldn't tell you which one, but, I'm with you in that Roger Moore did a pretty solid job when you look at the body of his Bond work. I've always loved the stripped-down ruggedness of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, especially when he walks up to the car that's hanging on the edge of the cliff with the assassin behind the wheel. You know the scene? It's about to go over, and the assassin could live or die based on Bond's help, and Bond just throws in the pin of a dove that the assassin left on one of his victims, and then Bond kicks the car so that it goes over the edge. That's gotta be my favorite scene in all of Bondom.

      April 30, 2010 at 4:39AM EST
Drew McWeeny

About This Blog

Los Angeles has changed since 1990, and Drew McWeeny, all-around Chauncey Gardner of movie fandom, has seen it all as an industry insider and screenwriter who wrote for 12 years as "Moriarty" for Ain't It Cool News.

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook