Review of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) by Andy P — 01 Aug 2013

Here is the remake for 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. Now, the original 'Nightmare' is one of my favourite films of all time. I've watched it countless times. It's definitely one of the scariest and best of horror movies because of the concept, and because of its authentic, raw filmmaking by Wes Craven.

There have been many sequels, some that are good, most which are terrible, but none that match the original's greatness. Now although I love the original, I had mixed emotions on what purpose a remake would serve.

Of course most horror remakes are bile and stupid, but I think if it's done right it can improve on the original. The original 'Nightmare' was terrific, but it wasn't without flaws. Mostly because of its low-budget there were limitations to what they could do with the story.

They did an excellent job with the money they had, thinking outside the box to create supernatural nightmare death scenes. But what if they had the budget and technology to use 21st century-like special effects? Imagine what they could do with that story if they had a big budget.

We could have something quite spectacular, right? Well those were the thoughts that went through my head when I heard about the remake. So I was willing to suspend the negative expectations I had gathered from watching previous horror remakes and hope that this time they can really do some good.

And then I saw Michael Bay was producing.. That's never a good sign. And then I heard for the first time ever Robert Englund would not be playing Freddy Krueger. I was starting to have my doubts. Finally I saw the movie, and the first thing I thought once the end credits rolled was "what a missed opportunity".

It was the inferior rehashing that 'Halloween' and 'Friday the 13th' were. And how wrong I was about the special effects; the use of old-school make up and thinking outside the box in the original was far more effective than the CGI seen here.

For instance, watch the part in the original where Freddy watches over Nancy by pressing through the wallpaper. Then see how crappy it was done with CGI in the remake... Watch the part in the original where Tina gets killed in her sleep by being dragged up the wall and onto the ceiling while being cut up.

Then see the rollercoaster-esque counterpart in the remake... And of course look at Freddy's face. They tried to give him a look of a real burn victim. But to be honest the CGI looks quite stupid whereas the makeup on Robert Englund's face in the original was far more terrifying.

Jackie Earl Hayley does a good job playing Freddy. He is darkly funny which is what he should be like. But there was no way he was going to match Robert Englund. It's like trying to find and actor that can match Sean Connery as James Bond, or match Christopher Reeve as Superman.

Englund IS Freddy. And I feel I should criticise the acting featured here by the rest of the cast, but come on, the acting in all the other 'Nightmare' movies were never great anyway, except for a few exceptions, most notably Johnny Depp, Patricia Arquette, and of course Heather Langenkamp.

.. ahh Heather, the TRUE Nancy, how I miss her. Sorry Rooney Mara, but like how there is only one Freddy, there in only ONE NANCY, and that is Heather Langenkamp. Anyway, overall if you were expecting a remake that brought something new to the 'Nightmare' table and improves on the previous films, then you will be disappointed.

This was just another example of Hollywood overlooking original ideas and resurrecting old ones, ditching real tension for an abundance of 'BOO!' moments and in turn, raping old classics. Please excuse the crudeness but that's what it is.

It is, however, better than some of the sequels, like part 5 and 6, and it does return to the seriousness of the original, but I've learnt to just stick to the originals and know that that's the best I'm going to get.

Stop thinking it can be improved by a remake.