The nightmare on Elm Street – remake

It’s been some time since I saw this movie. It was a random choice, a relatively “what are we going to do now?” afternoon. So we went to the movies. The only thing interesting was A nightmare on Elm Street, the remake so we figured, what the hey, and went to it. Now I heard that many disliked it, saying that it’s nasty and idiotic, but let me disapprove here.
Let’s start with the beginning, after the waiting line at the popcorn lane, after finding our seats, after the noisy group of “cool people” that walked in and after the commercials. After all this, the movie started. It all started nice and quiet, like the original movie, only that the actors did a way better job now. I’m not trampling over you old movies loving folks, I like some myself, but in the original Nightmare on Elm street the actors really seemed like they were reading the lines from a plank behind the cameras. They had no emotions and no inflections and the acting seemed forced. But let’s get back to our own boats here. I was saying that this movie actually contained some scenes from the original one, which I found very impressive since not many remakes actually keep to the original movie, not anything more than the main plot ( Halloween for example, which I personally found to be a good but gruesome  movie…the remake I mean ).
The first time that Freddy appeared on the screen, it was more of a boo moment, which the movie abounds in ( nothing bad in that ). Jackie Earle Haley, which we all know now as Rorschach, gave Freddy a new signature in this movie, which I found interesting. Now we all know Freddy Krueger’s story, but what is new about this movie is that it actually emphasizes the detective work of finding what did Krueger do and why is he haunting and killing them. A new aspect of the movie is the micro-naps, making Freddy more present than he already was and giving it, if you stay with me here, a tent of realism, because no one can stay awake for that long without dozing off at some point. And that’s where things got interesting. Till now we got an introduction to what Freddy is ( a killer loose in the dream world that kills with a self made knife glove ),  what did he supposedly do to the children, although we were kept in the dark until the end if he really was or not guilty for everything he was charged with, and that he fancied Nancy Thompson ( after killing her brother,  in a very vivid way tot he viewers ).
We’re then transported to a series of kills, very much like in the original movie, and end up with two characters left. Nancy and Quentin Smith. They decide to investigate this character, Freddy Krueger, to find out about his past, hidden by their parents. Now I’m not going to relate the whole movie here, if you’re interested then go see it, I just want to make my point, that I find this to be more realistic than the original and that I don’t understand what many people have with this part here and the micro-naps. I find the investigation part rather natural, because, be it in her place, I doubt that anyone who’s haunted by a maniac killer would just sit back and accept his or her fate. Knowing why you is natural for human curiosity, and trying to stop it comes on the next line of ” most natural things to do when you’re being haunted “.
The ending of the movie suggests a sequel, let’s just hope that they won’t blow it on this part, because the remake wasn’t bad.
And another thing. I just read a review of this movie, and this got my attention:
So much was missed out by this director.. the casting was terrible, the acting was lame, the story was choppy, there was no background build up with the characters at all so I really couldn’t care less when they started to die. There was hardly any nightmarish scenes with Freddy being mensing which I obviously expected and was really looking forward too. Instead of creepy acting and eerie scenes the director just decided to overdo the music score to build up tension which just didn’t have the desired affect and was obviously just to cover up the flat acting and equally flat script. The guy who played Freddy was OK I suppose but he just wasn’t scary enough to look at and didn’t really creep me out as much as Robert Englund did.
First thing’s first. The acting, from my point of view was way better than the original movie. Nostalgia makes you blind, that’s what Claudiu said, and I agree with him. If you liked the first movie better, you still can’t deny the fact that this one wasn’t bad at all. Now on with the story. As I already said, I found this one to be better and more focused on the investigation. It was a nice change, not at all an eye sore ( read above to see again why ). On the last part I must agree, although Jackie Earle Haley did a very good job playing Freddy, the original one was more creepy and gave you goosebumps when you saw him. He had an evil face that could haunt you. But as my opinion goes, it didn’t change the movie by much.
So to end this review, I’ll conclude with this: if you haven’t seen the movie yet, then don’t go see it with the expectation of it to be the very same as the original, because it is not.
A general 8,5 from me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s