Look, I really wanted to like this movie. Some people have flamed me in the past for saying that I went into Rob Zombie's "Halloween" films with my mind already made up and going into protracted bitching mode, and they wouldn't be wrong, but this was a remake that I genuinely wanted to succeed. You know you're in for an undertaking when I lead off a review with a kinda-sorta apology, huh? I've been debating the various methods that I could attack this review. Reviews, by and large, should be persuasive, and there's really little that I can say about this film that will convince you to think one way or the other about the quality contained in this motion picture. But you don't turn to me for review-writing advice, ever present Horror Nerd reader. Nope, you want hard-hitting analysis. I'll do my best.This movie wasn't terrible. It's competent, well-shot (and refreshingly free of Michael Bay smash cuts) and has some good acting. It won't piss you off with any "Professor X dying"-style nonsensical plot twists, and it won't flat out insult your intelligence like Zombie's "Halloween 2." Instead, what this movie is may be even WORSE than those things, even though it is technically a way better movie than that legendary cinematic steaming pile "H2" - it's just so incredibly BY-THE-NUMBERS. One of the biggest complaints leveled against Platinum Dunes, the Michael Bay-owned production company that produced not only this but several other maligned horror remakes (the "TCM" reboots, "The Hitcher," "Amityville Horror" version Reynolds, etc.), is that they take classic slasher flicks and effectively suck the soul out of them. They take movies that rose above the horror genre and contained genuine emotion and/or camp value and slickify them; the end result is no doubt a competent product, but one lacking in pretty much any emotional investment or coolness factor.
Fortunately, there is some coolness factor in "A Nightmare on Elm Street" version 2010, as well as a few redeeming qualities. You have to dig for your enjoyment of this film, but it's there. Unfortunately, it's hidden by a whole heap o' tedium.
A quick word to those who normally avoid horror movies because they scare you too much - you've got nothing to worry about with this one, because this movie just isn't scary. At all. Remember that awesome marionette death from "Dream Warriors" that cost you hours of sleep as a kid? This film has zero moments of that caliber. There's nothing that will stick with you after leaving the theater. There's plenty of sound scare stingers (for the uninitiated, think someone smashing cymbals behind your head - it startles you, sure, but it doesn't linger in your head and crop up at all the worst times), but literally nothing you haven't seen before as either a "Nightmare on Elm Street" fan or a horror fan at large.
What this "Nightmare" does, peppered in between many, many nightmare sequences (I don't have any official count, but I'd be willing to bet that this movie has more nightmare scenes than any of the previous movies), is repeat the story of the original film basically point by point. It's not an exact redux; there's differences in the characterizations (not to mention name changes), and some of the specifics are changed, but if you've seen the first movie, you'll be feeling a sense of creepy deja vu more than once.
The screenplay by Wesley Strick wastes little time getting to the point, which is always appreciated. We are almost immediately introduced to our core group of teens - outsider Nancy (Rooney Mara), potential boyfriend Quentin (Kyle Gallner), hot chick Kris (Katie Cassidy), nice guy Jesse (Thomas Dekker) and Kris' current boyfriend Dean (Kellan Lutz). Within five minutes, Dean is dead (SPOILER ALERT ;))...and the other kids soon begin having nightmares of their own featuring a familiar-looking guy in a red-and-black sweater. Anyone who has seen a single "Nightmare" film knows the drill, but for those not in the know, here's the skinny - after the initial tragic death, the teens realize that they are sharing the same nightmare about a hideously burned man with a VERY ill temper threatening to kill them. They begin avoiding sleep, they learn the mystery of their shared dream killer, and they throw some ragtag plan together to kill him.
A quick word on the new man behind the Freddy Krueger make-up. Robert Englund, who portrayed Mr. Krueger in the original movies (and for almost 20 years, no less) was a legitimate horror icon who truly lent the character a menace and a charisma that was virtually unmatched, and I felt for any man that had to step into his shoes. Dealing with these expectations, Jackie Earle Haley does a more than commendable job in the role; he's a character actor through and through, and his turn as the immortal demon of sleep is admittedly a little different than Englund's (mainly in the body language), but no less effective. Haley is a master at diving deep into characters, into their motivations and darkness, and when this guy makes menacing slicy gestures at unsuspecting early-'20s actors and actresses, you believe him.
This film does deviate from the original when it comes to Krueger's back story. In the original film, he was a vicious child murderer who was actually caught by the authorities, and admitted to his crimes, but released on a technicality. In this film, he is immediately killed by an angry mob of parents before any sort of trial begins. For some reason, this change didn't ring correct with me. Firstly, it shows us a Freddy Krueger running away from the mob and panicking (in all other versions of the story, the character is evil and twisted enough to accept his fate). While it's nowhere near the offense that the Platinum Dunes crew committed with Leatherface in the "TCM" remake, it's nonetheless a little emasculating moment for the villain, and the taking of a character who was the ultimate in evil and tearing back the curtain. Still, this change wasn't a deal breaker.
The movie's other key change is in its treatment of central character Nancy. Heather Langenkamp's version of Nancy was appealing because she was the embodiment of "normal" - outgoing, well-liked, nice, virginal. In essence, the perfect horror movie heroine. The Nancy of this film has all sorts of angst and father issues; perhaps the movie's biggest single mistake was removing the character of Nancy's policeman father. The dynamic between those two was the highlight of the original film, and what we're left with is just another chick that Hollywood writers dream-girl up (by making Nancy an emo-fied artist).
So let's see if we can tally the pluses on this film. Jackie Earle Haley's turn as Freddy is something to behold despite the monkeying that the script does to his character's dynamic. And while her character isn't written well, Rooney Mara shows a lot of potential in this film. If she picks the right roles from this point forward, this girl has a bright future. I also loved the homages that the film pays to some of the original film's deaths. The bathtub scene and that immortal "dragged across the ceiling" kill are re-touched in modern-day SFX glory, but amazingly, neither death feels as if it only exists to make us stand up and applaud. The fans could appreciate these, and the audience at my screening seemed to dig them, as well.
And now, the negatives. I've already mentioned the changes to the Freddy and Nancy characters, and all of those GODDAMN jump scares that I've come to hate with a psychotic fury. This movie's biggest sin, however, is strangely enough the exact same mistake that the original "Nightmare on Elm Street" made. This isn't a movie with a particularly large cast of victim characters. We're given plenty of time to adjust to them, to learn their names and personalities and to know what makes each of them tick. We're also given the bare bones of a story to get into to make us care about them.
The reason why I was so in favor of a remake of "Nightmare on Elm Street," as I've said many times, is that this is a horror movie with aspirations to be a very important film. If done right, this story can be a very evocative, very powerful metaphor for life, about teenage kids facing their greatest fear - represented oh-so-well by scarred dream killer Freddy Krueger - and overcoming it. At this level, it becomes allegory for facing challenges in life. But in order for us to achieve that, we must see these characters as something other than one-note archetypes, and that is where Wes Craven's original "Nightmare" fails. All of the kids are merely there as window dressing, with the exception of Nancy, and we don't give a damn about any of them when Freddy guts 'em like fishes.
This film suffers that same fate, albeit with slightly different characters. Former lovers Kris and Jesse are the most likable characters in the movie - we are given their backgrounds almost immediately (they used to date, broke up, and are now forced together by the unholy consequences of their current situation), and are the first ones killed. Nancy and Quentin, the movie's central couple, are completely colorless. We know nothing more about them at the end of the movie than we did at the beginning. Thus, the film fails at giving us that emotional depth, the resonance that the best movie in the series - the immortal "Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" - achieved with such aplomb. It fails at being a metaphor for conquering your demons, and as such, this remake is a failure, as it does not improve on the biggest faults of the original movie.
It's really quite sad. "Nightmare on Elm Street" has always had a fantastic concept and an amazing villain character, but somehow, some way, all the stars have aligned in this series only ONCE in the "Dream Warriors." It's even more sad that earlier today I watched the two newest chapters in the Japanese "Ju-On" franchise (better known as "The Grudge" here in the States) and was once again floored by the films and the ability of this nine-movie series to constantly churn out quality. Here's a series that can seemingly reinvent itself with every entry and still call itself "Ju-On," while "Nightmare" has been stuck on cruise control for the vast majority of its 25+ year existence.
Ultimately, there's a lot worse flicks out there than "A Nightmare On Elm Street" 2010. There's a new Friedberg and Seltzer movie coming this year, after all. But there's also a lot better, including a couple movies in the original series. There is much to admire in this movie in the form of its wonderfully played villain and genuine reverence for the source material. Ultimately, it's that same reverence that proves to be its undoing, as the movie embraces the very same fallacies that resulted in this being a necessary movie in the first place. In that regard, this is a maddeningly frustrating movie; this could have been SO GOOD if paid the proper care for its characters and story, and at the end of the day, it's just another clinical Platinum Dunes horror remake.
No comments:
Post a Comment